Australian Exporter Rails Against ITC's Findings in 5-Year Review of AD Orders on Hot-Rolled Steel
The International Trade Commission used an incorrect interpretation of the word "likely" when finding that revoking the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia would likely lead to the recurrence of material injury to the domestic U.S. industry within a reasonably foreseeable time, Australian exporter BlueScope Steel argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade Jan. 13, BlueScope also said the ITC erred by cumulating Australian imports with other countries' imports in the injury review (BlueScope Steel v. United States, CIT # 22-00353).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
In September 2021, the ITC started its five-year review of the antidumping duty orders on hot-rolled steel from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K., and the countervailing duty orders on the same goods from Brazil and South Korea. The commission was looking to see whether revoking the orders "would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time," ultimately finding revocation would cause such damage.
At the trade court, BlueScope said "likely" means "what is probably going to occur in the future -- what is more likely than not to occur." This definition, plus that the ITC's finding must be supported by substantial evidence, requires that record evidence support the determination that certain situations are more likely than not to occur, the exporter said. The ITC did not clear this standard, failing to "analyze whether a particular event was 'likely'" and show substantial evidence backing its conclusion, the complaint said.
The commission further violated the law by cumulating Australia's exports with those of the other countries under review, the brief said. Under the commission's "long-standing past" practice, the ITC will not cumulate imports from a country where the record shows the "conditions of competition under which the particular country will participate in the U.S. market are so different from the other subject countries that it should be examined separately."
In the present case, the record shows that unlike in other countries, BlueScope was the only hot-rolled manufacturer in Australia, "undertook very large-scale investments" in its U.S. factory after the orders were imposed and derived most of its profits from its U.S. production, the complaint said. BlueScope argued that the ITC ignored this evidence in deciding to cumulate Australian imports with the other countries'.