On February 24, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued a notice in Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products (Inv. No. 337-TA-1002).
By way of background, this investigation was instituted based on a complaint filed by U.S. Steel alleging a violation of section 337 by numerous Chinese steel producers and distributors—as well as certain Hong Kong and U.S. affiliates—by reason of: (1) a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes, the threat or effect of which is to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the U.S.; (2) misappropriation and use of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the U.S.; and (3) false designation of origin of manufacturer, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the U.S. See our April 26, 2016, June 7, 2016, August 30, 2016, and November 14, 2016 posts for more details on this investigation.
According to the notice:
On August 26, 2016, Respondents filed a motion to terminate U.S. Steel’s antitrust claim under 19 CPR 210.21. On September 6, 2016, U.S. Steel filed a response in opposition to Respondents’ motion to terminate. On September 9, 2016, the Commission Investigative Attorney (“IA”) filed a response in opposition to Respondents’ motion to terminate. On November 14, 2016, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting Respondents’ motion to terminate Complainant’s antitrust claim under 19 CFR 210.21 and, in the alternative, under 19 CFR 210.18. On November 23, 2016, Complainant and the IA filed petitions for review of the ID. Complainant also requested oral argument before the Commission. On December 1, 2016, Respondents filed a response to the petitions for review. Also on December 1, 2016, Complainant filed a response to the IA’s petition for review.
On December 19, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice determining to review the ID (Order No. 38). See 81 FR 94416-17 (Dec. 23, 2016). In the Notice, the Commission requested written submissions in connection with its review and tentatively set a date of March 14, 2017, for possible oral argument. Id. The notice indicated that the Commission would determine whether to hold an oral argument by February 24, 2017.
Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.45, the Complainant’s request for a Commission oral argument has been granted, and an oral argument in connection with the Commission’s review of the subject ID will be held on March 14, 2017 at 10 am in the main hearing room. A notice providing the scope and details of the hearing will be forthcoming.