Korean Steel Co. Fights US Producer's Bid to Intervene in CTL Plate CVD Case
Domestic U.S. cut-to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) producer SSAB Enterprises should not be allowed to intervene in exporter Dongkuk Steel Mill Co.'s countervailing duty challenge, the exporter told the Court of International Trade in an April 5 brief. Since SSAB did not submit any factual information or written arguments to the Commerce Department during the relevant CVD proceeding, SSAB is not an "interested party" with standing to intervene in the case, Dongkuk said (Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00032).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The case concerns the 2019 CVD review of CTL plate from South Korea. In particular, Dongkuk is challenging Commerce's finding that the provision of carbon emission permits to mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel constituted a countervailable subsidy. SSAB then sought to join the case as a defendant-intervenor.
Dongkuk further bolstered its arguments against SSAB's intervention by discussing its efforts in joining the CVD review's petition. SSAB posits that it joined the other domestic producers in requesting the review. Dongkuk, however, contests this characterization, since the U.S. manufacturer only put forward a "belief" of illegal subsidies and not a factual allegation.
The exporter told the trade court that "the request for review cited by SSAB’s counsel did not contain any certificates of accuracy signed by company officials or by counsel to those companies," the brief said. "Consequently, the request for review cited by SSAB cannot have been intended as a factual submission -- because Commerce’s regulations explicitly require such certificates of accuracy for any submissions containing factual information."
Further, since SSAB did not share any internal research with Commerce or submit any factual evidence to back this "belief," SSAB does not have standing, Dongkuk said. "This Court has held 'participation in a proceeding' is measured by the party’s communications with Commerce, not by activities conducted outside of Commerce’s attention," the brief said.