International Trade Update

Steel Update

Complainants File First Submission In WTO Panel On US Steel Safeguards

Following a decision by the WTO to consolidate into one Panel the requests of eight Members challenging the US safeguard measures on steel, complainants filed their first submissions to the Panel on August 30. (See "WTO Members Reach Procedural Agreement On Joint 201 Steel Panel," International Trade Update, August 2002.) Complainants argue, first, that the ITC's "like product" analysis was inconsistent with several articles of the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994. The ITC conducts a like product analysis in order to determine what constitutes a domestic industry producing similar or like products. Once the ITC makes its like product determination, i.e., when it defines the domestic industry, it then conducts its injury analysis of that industry. Complainants argue that the ITC's like product determinations (its various product categories) were overly broad and did not reflect the products' distinct physical and chemical characteristics, as well as the varying end-uses of each of the products. If the ITC had taken these factors into consideration when defining the domestic industry, i.e., when making its like product determination, it would have found, complainants argue, separate domestic industries for which to conduct injury analyses. For example, complainants argue that the ITC wrongfully found one domestic industry producing "flat products" because that category comprised five distinct product groups: slab, hot-rolled steel, plate, cold-rolled steel and coated steel. If the ITC had found one domestic industry for each of these products, it would have been required to analyze injury with respect to each of these categories rather than as a whole. Complainants also argue that the ITC failed to meet the "increased imports" standard with respect to certain of its findings and that it failed, in certain instances, to properly consider "other causes" besides imports that may have caused injury to the US industry. In addition, complainants argue that the President improperly disregarded the ITC's recommendations and imposed measures more restrictive than necessary to offset any injury. Complainants further argue that the ITC and the President wrongfully excluded its NAFTA and other trade partners from the safeguard measures. The United States must submit its first submission by October 4. The next phase of the case involves an oral hearing before the Panel scheduled for October 30- 31. Rebuttal briefs are due on November 25.

Final Steel 201 Exclusions Granted

The US Department of Commerce (DOC) and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on August 30 completed the process of reviewing and granting steel exclusions under the Section 201 safeguard measures on steel. (See "More Steel 201 Exclusions Granted," International Trade Update, August 2002.) USTR approved an...