Once sworn in, the commissioners will restore the USITC to its full six-member complement and substantially reshape the Commission’s membership.

The Senate confirmed:

• Brett Doyle, a Republican from Connecticut, for a term expiring December 16, 2030;
• David Foley, Jr., a Republican from Virginia, for a term expiring June 16, 2032;
• Samuel Negatu, a Democrat from the District of Columbia, for a term expiring June 16, 2029;
• Peter-Anthony Pappas, a Republican from New Jersey, for a term expiring June 16, 2035; and
• Bartholomew Thanhauser, a Democrat from New York, for a term expiring December 16, 2027.

The confirmations followed a June 25 hearing before the Senate Finance Committee and the Committee’s approval of all five nominations on July 14.

A Broad Range of Experience

The confirmed commissioners bring experience spanning intellectual property law, international economic policy, national security, government contracting, and trade negotiations.

Pappas has experience in intellectual property and Section 337 matters, while Thanhauser previously worked on trade policy at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Foley is an attorney and U.S. Air Force Reserve officer, and Doyle and Negatu have held roles involving public policy and international economic matters.

Together, their backgrounds reflect several areas that regularly intersect with the Commission’s work, including intellectual property enforcement, trade policy, technology, and U.S. industrial competitiveness.

Why the Confirmations Matter

The confirmation of five commissioners at once represents a substantial change in the Commission’s membership. The USITC is authorized to have six commissioners, with no more than three belonging to the same political party.

For practitioners, the significance of the transition will become clearer through the commissioners’ early votes and written views. Parties will be watching how the newly composed Commission approaches recurring issues in material injury analyses, including causation, cumulation, conditions of competition, and the treatment of post-petition data. In Section 337 matters, attention will also focus on the Commission’s approach to domestic industry requirements, remedies, and public-interest considerations.

The commissioners’ separate and dissenting views may be particularly useful in identifying areas of consensus and differences in analytical approach.

The countries named in the Petition are Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey.  In the petition, it alleges that these countries are “dumping,” meaning that they are exporting the product at issue, CAAS, at a lower market price than it would charge normally in its own market in its home country.

The alleged anti-dumping margins for each country are as follows:

Bahrain: 56.98 percent

Brazil: 30.23 percent to 44.20 percent

Croatia: 32.01 percent

Egypt: 31.5 percent

Germany: 37.22 percent

Greece: 61.25 percent

India: 122.8 to 151.0 percent

Indonesia: 32.12 percent

Italy: 28.97 percent

South Korea: 41.88 percent

Oman: 15.90 percent to 62.80 percent

Romania: 56.22 percent

Serbia: 40.61 percent

Slovenia: 30.88 percent

South Africa: 78.25 percent

Spain: 25.26 percent

Taiwan: 27.22 percent

Turkey: 42.45 percent

The product here, CAAS, is an aluminum product that is flat-rolled and could be used commercially in a variety of ways depending on the industry. It could be used in transportation, construction, or electrical work. The only use of CAAS that is outside of the scope of this petition is its use for aluminum cans.

Currently, the issue is under investigation by both the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission. The investigations will determine whether the imports are, in fact, injuring the U.S. trade industry through an unlawful dumping process.

If this product is of interest to you or your company could potentially be impacted, please contact Camelia Mazard, Esq. of Doyle, Barlow, and Mazard, PLLC for a consultation at either cmazard@dbmlawgroup.com or (202) 589-1837.

Under U.S. law, a domestic industry can petition the government to initiate an AD investigation into the pricing of an imported product to determine whether it is sold in the United States at less than fair value (i.e., “dumped”).  A domestic industry can also petition the initiation of a CVD investigation of alleged subsidization of foreign producers by their government.  Additional duties can be imposed if DOC determines that imported goods are dumped and/or subsidized, and if the ITC also determines that the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with such injury by reason of subject imports.

If the ITC and DOC make preliminary affirmative determinations, U.S. importers will be required to post cash deposits in the amount of the AD and/or CVD duty rates for all entries on or after the date DOC’s preliminary determination is published in the Federal Register.  The preliminary AD/CVD rates can change in the final DOC determination, especially if foreign producers and their governments participate fully in the investigations.

Here the petition alleges that fabricated structural steel from Canada, China, and Mexico is being sold at less than fair value in the U.S. market and benefitting from countervailable subsidies. The alleged average dumping margins are 31.46 percent for Canada, 218.85 percent for China, and 41.39 percent for Mexico.

The products covered by this petition include carbon and alloy (including stainless) steel products such as angles, columns, beams, girders, plates, flange shapes, channels, hollow structural section shapes, base plates, plate-work components, and other steel products that have been fabricated for assembly or installation into a structure. Typical fabrication processes include cutting, drilling, welding, joining, bolting, bending, punching, pressure fitting, molding, adhesion, and other finishing processes. Fabricated structured steel is used in constructing structures such as buildings (commercial, office, institutional, and multi-family residential), industrial and utility projects, parking decks, arenas and convention centers, medical facilities, and ports, transportation, and infrastructure facilities.

Subject goods are classifiable under HTSUS 7308.90.9590, 7308.90.3000, and 7308.90.6000 and may also enter under HTSUS 7216.91.0010, 7216.91.0090, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7228.70.6000, 7301.10.0000, 7301.20.1000, 7301.20.5000, 7308.40.0000, 7308.90.9530, and 9406.90.0030.

The petition excludes fabricated steel concrete reinforcing bar under certain condition, fabricated structural steel used for bridges and bridge sections, pre-engineered metal building systems, and steel roof and floor decking systems designed and manufactured to Steel Deck Institute standards.

The Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission will next determine whether to launch AD and CV duty and injury investigations, respectively, on these products. There are strict statutory deadlines associated with these proceedings, so affected companies that wish to protect their interests should contact trade counsel as soon as possible.

For more information, please contact

Camelia Mazard
(202) 589-1837
cmazard@dbmlawgroup.com

or

Andre Barlow
(202) 589-1838
abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com