Turkish Exporter Rails Against US Steel's Intervention Bid in Case Against ITC Decision
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari in a Feb. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade railed against U.S. Steel's bid to intervene in a case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding. The exporter said that U.S. Steel Corp. filed for intervention under the wrong legal standard since the case was established under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction, and not Section 1581(c). Even if this point were irrelevant, Erdemir said the court should still prevent U.S. Steel (USSC) from intervening in the case since it was not a proper party to the underlying proceeding (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).
The ITC simultaneously carried out antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in 2016. In the CVD investigation, the commission said imports from Turkey were negligible after it excluded Colakoglu, the country's largest exporter, since it was subsidy-free. However, in the AD case, the Commerce Department said Colakoglu dumped its exports in the U.S. market, so the company's merchandise was included in the injury proceeding.
Colakoglu filed suit at CIT to contest its dumping margin. The trade court sided with the exporter over a methodological error committed by Commerce, resulting in a zero percent margin for Colakoglu. The company was revoked from the AD order retroactive to the agency's preliminary determination. Erdemir requested the ITC revisit the AD injury proceeding either via a "reconsideration proceeding," a changed circumstances review or a sunset review that was pending at the time. The commission refused to do so, leading Erdemir to file three cases at CIT.
U.S. Steel moved for intervention of right in one of the court cases under 28 U.S.C. Section 2631(j)(1)(B) and CIT Rule 24(a). In its reply, the plaintiff said these are the incorrect provisions to intervene since those provisions provide for intervention in Section 1581(c) cases, whereas the present action is a Section 1581(i) matter, meaning intervention is at the court's discretion. "Because USSC incorrectly seeks intervention of right, and not permissive intervention, this Court should deny USSC’s motion," the brief said.
Were the court to still consider U.S. Steel's intervention as a right, the trade court should still prevent the company from intervening in the case because U.S. Steel failed to include a pleading that sets out its defense for which intervention is sought and address any undue delay or prejudice that could arise from its intervention. "Further, because USSC relies merely upon its interested-party and false claim of party-to-the-proceeding status, it fails to provide any reason why such a standard for intervention wouldn’t unduly delay proceedings by allowing any interested party who was a party to the proceeding to intervene," the brief said.