US Steel Makers Can't Intervene in ITC Injury Challenge, Turkish Exporter Says
U.S. steelmakers Nucor, Steel Dynamics, SSAB Enterprises and Cleveland-Cliffs should not be allowed to intervene in a case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding, plaintiff Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari argued in a series of three Feb. 15 briefs at the Court of International Trade (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The case originally stems from ITC's antidumping and countervailing duty injury investigations on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in 2016. The commission included exports from Colakoglu, the country's largest exporter, in the AD case despite excluding it from the CVD proceeding. Colakoglu filed suit at CIT to contest the dumping margin it was assigned by the Commerce Department. The trade court sided with the exporter over a methodological error, resulting in a zero percent margin for Colakoglu. The company was revoked from the AD order.
Eregli Demir requested the ITC revisit the AD injury proceeding either via a "reconsideration proceeding," a changed circumstances review or a sunset review that was pending at the time. The commission refused, leading Eregli Demir to file three cases at CIT. U.S. Steel moved for intervention of right in one of the cases, but its effort was thwarted by the trade court. In a Feb. 6 order, Judge Timothy Reif ruled U.S. Steel failed to show that it fulfilled the requirements for intervention under 28 U.S.C. Section 2631(j)(1)(B) and Rule 24(a).
Nucor, Steel Dynamics, SSAB Enterprises and Cleveland-Cliffs then followed U.S. Steel's failed intervention bid with requests of their own. Responding to the steelmakers, Eregli Demir said intervention is not feasible under rule 24(a)(2), as they have failed to show "a legally protectable interest, that this case would have direct and immediate effect on" the companies, "or that its interest would not be adequately protected by the Commission."
The companies are seeking alternative grounds for intervention under CIT Rule 24(b). But the plaintiff said the companies have failed to establish they would be "adversely aggrieved or affected by a decision in this case," nor have they established that intervention would not "unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication" of the parties' rights.
"There is no possible outcome of this case that could adversely aggrieve or affect Nucor," Eregli Demir said. "Nucor argues that it has a 'has a strong interest in the outcome in this litigation as it could jeopardize the antidumping order that Nucor petitioned for and now benefits from as a domestic producer of hot-rolled steel.' But this claim is inapplicable in this action."