Canned Food Maker and Gov't Argue Over Steel Availability in Section 232 Exclusion Case

The Commerce Department ignored evidence against an objector's claim that it could provide domestic tin mill products to make up the shortfall when it denied Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products by Seneca Foods, the company continued to argue during July 11 oral arguments at the Court of International Trade (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).

Seneca said Commerce's Section 232 exclusion denials rested on U.S. Steel's claims of its ability to provide spot sales despite "overwhelming evidence" that showed that it could not or would not supply Seneca with the requested volumes. Seneca referenced correspondence with U.S. Steel, which it says showed that at the time of the orders, U.S. Steel told Seneca that it could not supply steel beginning in 2021 (see 2305030044). Much of the questioning centered around contract sales, which Seneca originally referenced in its rebuttal, vs. small volume "spot sales," which U.S. Steel said that it had offered Seneca.

Because the vast majority of the industry is conducted through up-front contracts, Seneca's reference to "contract volumes" in its rebuttal should not be construed to mean that there was any spot sale availability, Seneca said. The government argued that Seneca is simply seeking a reweighing of the evidence by the court, but Seneca said it is merely asking the court to confirm that Commerce correctly did so in the first place.

Judge Gary Katzmann repeatedly pressed the government on U.S. Steel's communications with Seneca and whether the government was right to accept U.S. Steel's version of events while doubting Seneca's. In a world where decisions are made rapidly, given what's at stake, it would not be unreasonable for Commerce to rely on Seneca's own characterizations of the evidence and prospective availability of steel available to it, Katzmann said.