BIS Continues to Say Domestic Producer US Steel Can Cover Importer’s Needs
After a remand, the Commerce Department once again refused to exclude certain steel products from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties even though their importer can’t get the needed materials domestically, that importer said in March 8 comments. Instead, it claimed, the department continued to simply rely on the word of its competitor (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).
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.
“After supposedly deliberating for all this time, Commerce has done nothing more than once again hang its hat on U.S. Steel’s ‘certification’ that it can supply the product CSI needs,” importer California Steel Industries said.
The Court of International Trade previously attempted to mediate between Commerce and California Steel, but that attempt broke down around February (see 2402050019). CIT had ordered the mediation as part of a 2021 remand requested by the U.S. that California Steel opposed as “unconscionable,” citing its lack of specificity and the impact a continuing delay would have on the company’s operations (see 2108170072).
Commerce returned with a new ruling Feb. 9, but the results were the same (see 2402090057). The importer’s 193 requests for exclusions were all denied, Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security finding that there were “no overriding national security concerns” that would require they be granted.
BIS also said that the steel slabs California Steel sought to import were available “in a sufficient and reasonably available amount” domestically because U.S. Steel had certified it could produce them. The bureau said that California Steel didn't make any rebuttal claims about U.S. Steel’s capacity.
“CSI uses the slab it requires to manufacture downstream products such as coil and pipe which it then sells in competition with U.S. Steel and other integrated mills,” California Steel said. “Given that, it is not surprising that U.S. Steel has no interest in helping CSI when the company is in a jam and needs slab.”
California Steel also pushed back on U.S. Steel’s ability to supply it, saying that the factual record shows the producer will need the slab it produces for its own products. And U.S. Steel’s total slab sales to all purchasers in 2018 was “nowhere near” the amount California Steel alone would need in a given year, it said.
Commerce has chosen to “just accept whatever U.S. Steel says as a basis for denying exclusion requests” in other instances, too, it said. It pointed out that CIT recently remanded, for failure to consider certain evidence, the denial of another Section 232 exclusion request by the importer Seneca Food “because, as it has in this case, Commerce simply relied on U.S. Steel’s certification to the exclusion of contrary evidence” (see 2310180052).
Upon the remand, BIS continued to deny that importer’s exclusion requests, too (see 2404020047).