US Steel Firms Move to Toss Suit Seeking Reconsideration of ITC Injury Decision
The Court of International Trade should toss a case from Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to reconsider its injury finding on hot-rolled steel from Turkey for lack of jurisdiction, four U.S. steel companies said. Filing a motion to dismiss at the trade court on July 31, Cleveland-Cliffs, Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises argued that Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, is not the proper jurisdiction for the case since Erdemir could have sought relief under Section 1581(c) (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 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 steel companies added that even if the court finds that it has jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), Erdemir has not stated a claim on which relief can be granted. The law clearly shows the ITC did not have the authority to reconsider its original injury decision, the motion said.
Erdemir's suit contests the ITC's decision not to reconsider its underlying injury finding, after which the Commerce Department said Colakoglu, the country's largest exporter, dumped its exports in the U.S. market. However, Colakoglu successfully challenged its dumping margin, dropping it to zero and excluding the company from the order. Erdemir said that as a result, the ITC would have made a negative final determination as to Colakoglu and revoked the order (see 2212270053). The company filed for reconsideration of the injury decision, which the commission denied, leading Erdemir to take its case to CIT.
The four steel companies said Erdemir's claimed jurisdiction for the fight, Section 1581(i), is improper since the exporter could have pursued a remedy by appealing the ITC's injury investigation under Section 1581(c) and staying the appeal until the final court decision on Colakoglu's margins. Erdemir said the ITC's decision not to conduct the reconsideration is not listed under the statute, precluding jurisdiction under Section 1581(c). The steel companies countered by saying this reading is "wrong and would inappropriately expand this Court's residual jurisdiction" under Section 1581(i).
Looking to the "true nature of the action," Erdemir challenges the ITC's "negligibility analysis and finding of non-negligibility in the original" AD investigation. Parties to the original investigations had the chance to file a Section 1581(c) suit and did not, the brief said. Interested parties in separate suits have followed this "statutorily prescribed path," which is more evidence of the error in Erdemir's approach, the steel companies claimed.
Erdemir also tried to establish jurisdiction by citing the Administrative Procedure Act. The steel companies objected, saying the APA is not a jurisdictional statute and cannot provide CIT with jurisdiction over the action.
If the court still finds jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the steel companies said the suit should still be tossed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The ITC's negligibility analysis was permissible since the commission followed the statute's instructions and relied on the most recent dumping margins, the brief said. Colakoglu's exclusion from the AD order four years after the record closed "does not have any bearing on the negligibility analysis that the Commission undertook during the original investigation," the steel companies said.
They added the allegation that the ITC has the authority to reconsider errors in the negligibility determination "is belied by language in the statute and the legislative history that preclude the Commission from reconsidering its original material injury determination under the factual circumstances presented in this case."