1/3/2012 12:01:00 AM
HEADLINES
Nucor Fastener To Press for Full ITC Investigation
As news of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s latest decision in the Nucor Fastener tariff effort spread, some in the fastener industry began to ponder the end of the domestic fastener manufacturer’s effort to have duties placed on certain fasteners imported from China and Taiwan.
In early December the ITC reaffirmed its original 2009 dismissal of the Nucor Fastener dumping case, which the U.S. Court of International Trade had remanded to the ITC after finding fault with some of the commission’s data for determining injury.
The ruling is a setback for domestic fastener manufacturers, whose hopes were raised when an appeals court remanded the case in September for a re-determination by the ITC.
“Wow. I guess the message has been sent,” a fastener veteran posted on Twitter.
But Nucor Fastener insists imported fasteners were dumped on the market, putting unrealistic price pressure on domestic fastener producers during a time of decreasing demand. And to that end, the company intends to continue pursuing tariffs.
“The imports that were subject to the investigation had greater than 50% market share,” Nucor Fastener counsel Dan Pickard of Wiley Rein LLP told FIN.
“I would suggest that this significant amount of subject imports became even more injurious as the recession deepened,” Pickard explained.
“In fact, the substantial volume of Chinese and Taiwanese imports, when measured either absolutely or by market share, at a time of decreasing demand, were being sold at dumped and subsidized prices, which cost U.S. manufacturers sales – which injured both American manufacturers and their workers.”
In considering whether there was a reasonable indication of a threat of material injury, the ITC said it “did not find a likelihood of substantially increased imports of subject CSSF from China and Taiwan in the imminent future.”
“Subject producers had excess capacity, were export-oriented, and undersold the domestic like product in the U.S. market, but the record data indicated that subject imports had maintained an essentially steady presence in the United States.”
The ITC concluded that subject imports would not enter the U.S. market at prices “likely to significantly depress or suppress domestic prices in the imminent future.”
And while acknowledging that current economic conditions made it unlikely that the fastener industry would “perform as well in the near term,” the ITC said that “because the industry had performed solidly during the investigation period, the Commission did not find it to be vulnerable.”
Reached by phone at his office in Washington DC, Pickard said there are some “real questions and vulnerabilities” in the ITC’s redetermination against injury.
While he did not elaborate, he insisted Nucor Fastener would continue to press its case to the CIT, which must now determine whether the commission met the requirements of the remand handed down by Judge Evan J. Wallach, a President Clinton appointee who has since been appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Veteran CIT Judge Gregory W. Carman has inherited the case. Carman was appointed by President Reagan in 1983.
Pickard said Nucor Fastener will urge Judge Carman to press the ITC for a full investigation, and it could be months before the judge rules on the matter.
And even if Judge Carman decides in favor of importers, Nucor Fastener could appeal the case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which would review the case from scratch.
Importers had hoped that the ITC’s redetermination against Nucor Fastener would signal an end to the matter.
Importer lead counsel Matthew McGrath told FIN that Nucor Fastener “had multiple bites at the apple, and hopefully now it’s time to put this case to rest.”
“The marketplace doesn’t need this shadow of uncertainty hanging over it,” McGrath insisted.
But Pickard expressed optimism that his client could ultimately secure a full investigation by the ITC.
“The end of the story is not clear yet,” Pickard insisted.
In remanding the case back to the ITC, CIT Judge Wallach cited flaws in the methodology that led to a unanimous dismissal of Nucor Fastener’s petition seeking tariffs on fasteners from China and Taiwan.
In a 31-page ruling, Wallach sent the case back to the ITC for a redetermination on two “holdings”: first, that the ITC improperly treated its import data as “comprehensive”; and that the ITC failed to identify a “rational basis for unqualified reliance on (unnamed domestic producer’s) questionnaire response.
In its antidumping petition, filed in September 2009, Nucor Fastener alleged average dumping margins of 145% for Chinese imports, and 74% for imports from Taiwan.
Nucor Fastener employs more than 225 workers at its 500,000 sq ft facility in St. Joe, IN. Web: nucor-fastener.com
As news of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s latest decision in the Nucor Fastener tariff effort spread, some in the fastener industry began to ponder the end of the domestic fastener manufacturer’s effort to have duties placed on certain fasteners imported from China and Taiwan.
In early December the ITC reaffirmed its original 2009 dismissal of the Nucor Fastener dumping case, which the U.S. Court of International Trade had remanded to the ITC after finding fault with some of the commission’s data for determining injury.
The ruling is a setback for domestic fastener manufacturers, whose hopes were raised when an appeals court remanded the case in September for a re-determination by the ITC.
“Wow. I guess the message has been sent,” a fastener veteran posted on Twitter.
But Nucor Fastener insists imported fasteners were dumped on the market, putting unrealistic price pressure on domestic fastener producers during a time of decreasing demand. And to that end, the company intends to continue pursuing tariffs.
“The imports that were subject to the investigation had greater than 50% market share,” Nucor Fastener counsel Dan Pickard of Wiley Rein LLP told GlobalFastenerNews.com.
“I would suggest that this significant amount of subject imports became even more injurious as the recession deepened,” Pickard explained.
“In fact, the substantial volume of Chinese and Taiwanese imports, when measured either absolutely or by market share, at a time of decreasing demand, were being sold at dumped and subsidized prices, which cost U.S. manufacturers sales – which injured both American manufacturers and their workers.”
In considering whether there was a reasonable indication of a threat of material injury, the ITC said it “did not find a likelihood of substantially increased imports of subject CSSF from China and Taiwan in the imminent future.”
“Subject producers had excess capacity, were export-oriented, and undersold the domestic like product in the U.S. market, but the record data indicated that subject imports had maintained an essentially steady presence in the United States.”
The ITC concluded that subject imports would not enter the U.S. market at prices “likely to significantly depress or suppress domestic prices in the imminent future.”
And while acknowledging that current economic conditions made it unlikely that the fastener industry would “perform as well in the near term,” the ITC said that “because the industry had performed solidly during the investigation period, the Commission did not find it to be vulnerable.”
Reached by phone at his office in Washington DC, Pickard said there are some “real questions and vulnerabilities” in the ITC’s redetermination against injury.
While he did not elaborate, he insisted Nucor Fastener would continue to press its case to the CIT, which must now determine whether the commission met the requirements of the remand handed down by Judge Evan J. Wallach, a President Clinton appointee who has since been appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Veteran CIT Judge Gregory W. Carman has inherited the case. Carman was appointed by President Reagan in 1983.
Pickard said Nucor Fastener will urge Judge Carman to press the ITC for a full investigation, and it could be months before the judge rules on the matter.
And even if Judge Carman decides in favor of importers, Nucor Fastener could appeal the case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which would review the case from scratch.
Importers had hoped that the ITC’s redetermination against Nucor Fastener would signal an end to the matter.
Importer lead counsel Matthew McGrath told GlobalFastenerNews.com that Nucor Fastener “had multiple bites at the apple, and hopefully now it’s time to put this case to rest.”
“The marketplace doesn’t need this shadow of uncertainty hanging over it,” McGrath insisted.
But Pickard expressed optimism that his client could ultimately secure a full investigation by the ITC.
“The end of the story is not clear yet,” Pickard insisted.
In remanding the case back to the ITC, CIT Judge Wallach cited flaws in the methodology that led to a unanimous dismissal of Nucor Fastener’s petition seeking tariffs on fasteners from China and Taiwan.
In a 31-page ruling, Wallach sent the case back to the ITC for a redetermination on two “holdings”: first, that the ITC improperly treated its import data as “comprehensive”; and that the ITC failed to identify a “rational basis for unqualified reliance on (unnamed domestic producer’s) questionnaire response.
In its antidumping petition, filed in September 2009, Nucor Fastener alleged average dumping margins of 145% for Chinese imports, and 74% for imports from Taiwan.
Nucor Fastener employs more than 225 workers at its 500,000 sq ft facility in St. Joe, IN. Web: nucor-fastener.com ©2012 GlobalFastenerNews.com
Related Stories:
• MRO Supplies are Becoming “Unsung Heroes” of AFT Fastener’s Product Line-Up
• Alcoa CEO: “We are #1 in fasteners.”
• FIN Fastener History Aids in Industry Research
• Fastener Startup Retains Marketing Firm for Branding
Share: