Open / Close Advertisement

U.S. Agency to Conduct Five-Year Reviews of Import Duties on Hot Rolled Steel

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has voted to conduct full five-year "sunset" reviews concerning the countervailing duty orders on hot rolled steel products from India, Indonesia, and Thailand and the antidumping duty orders on hot rolled steel products from China, India, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine.
As a result of these votes, the Commission will conduct full reviews to determine whether revocation of these orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies and of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The Commission's notice of institution in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file with the Commission responses that discuss the likely effects of revoking the order under review and provide other pertinent information. Generally within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the USITC's notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.
With regard to imports from Taiwan and Thailand, all six Commissioners concluded that both the domestic group responses and the respondent group responses were adequate and voted for full reviews.
With regard to imports from China, India, Indonesia, and Ukraine, all six Commissioners concluded that the domestic group responses were adequate and that the respondent group responses were inadequate, but that circumstances warranted full reviews.