US Steel Files Second Bid for Intervention in ITC Injury Challenge
U.S. Steel Corp. filed a second bid to intervene in a Court of International Trade case over an International Trade Commission injury proceeding, arguing that it meets the standard for permissive intervention since the outcome of the case could "jeopardize the antidumping order that U.S. Steel petitioned for and now benefits from." U.S. Steel also said that "it makes logical sense to allow" its intervention since its arguments will center on whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear plaintiff Eregli Demir ve Celik's claims, and the jurisdictional issue will "impact the companion cases where U.S. Steel has a statutory right to intervene" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).
The case originally stems from the ITC's antidumping and countervailing duty injury investigations on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in 2016. The commission included in its AD injury investigation exports from Colakoglu, the country's largest exporter, despite excluding them from the CVD injury proceeding.
Colakoglu filed suit at CIT to contest the dumping margin calculated in the Commerce Department's companion AD investigation. The trade court sided with the exporter over a methodological error, resulting in a zero percent margin and rendering the exporter exempt from the AD order. Eregli Demir requested the ITC revisit the AD injury proceeding to consider Colakolglu's exemption from the AD order, either via a "reconsideration proceeding," a changed circumstances review or a sunset review that was pending at the time. The commission refused, leading the plaintiff to file three cases at CIT.
U.S. Steel moved for intervention of right in one of the cases, but its effort was thwarted by the trade court (see 2302160033). In a Feb. 6 order, Judge Timothy Reif ruled U.S. Steel failed to show that it fulfilled the requirements for intervention under 28 U.S.C. 2631(j)(1)(B) and Rule 24(a). Undeterred, U.S. Steel filed another motion for intervention under CIT Rule 24(b). The company said it has a "strong interest in the outcome in this litigation" and that it participated in the "recently completed five-year review of the underlying order before the Commission to advocate for the continuation of the order on hot-rolled steel from Turkey."
The would-be intervenor said that its "defenses share with the main action's common questions of law or fact," since the U.S. Steel is looking to argue that the trade court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim, and that the plaintiff has not raised a claim on which relief can be granted and Eregli Demi's claim that it was entitled to a reconsideration review lacks merit. "Finally, given the very early stage of this appeal, intervention at this time will not unduly prejudice the other parties to this action," the brief said. The plaintiff told counsel for U.S. Steel that it opposes the motion.