NLMK Pennsylvania Decries US Steel's Bid to Intervene in Case on Section 232 Exclusions

Steel importer NLMK Pennsylvania opposed U.S. Steel Corporation's bid to file an amicus curiae brief in a case on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant the importer exclusion from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, arguing that there is no role for an amicus at this stage of the case. Telling the court that U.S. Steel is "donning sheep's clothing" in "asking for permission to enter as an amicus," even though the parties "wish to settle their dispute," meaning there is no issue in controversy at play (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).

NLMK Pennsylvania and the U.S. jointly requested a stay in the case in order to focus their efforts on settling the case (see 2308100018). The parties said an agreement was reached in principle, noting that more time was needed for NLMK to compile import data needed to effectuate the settlement. The case concerns 58 exclusions for two different types of semi-finished stainless steel slabs from Russia, which Commerce rejected after finding that the domestic industry was capable of timely making the slabs in enough quantities.

U.S. Steel sought to intervene in the case, arguing that it could assist the court in settling the matter. NLMK Pennsylvania said there is "nothing for the Court to approve and certainly nothing for which it needs U.S. Steel's 'assistance.'" It is not an amicus' role to seek relief the parties themselves are not seeking, the brief noted. And while U.S. Steel says that national security is relevant to the dispute, the company's argument that, instead of the governmental entities party to the case, it should be arbitrating what affects national security "is absurd and without legal support."

"It is a private party with an admitted and unrestrained financial interest in inflicting harm on its competitor, NLMK," the importer said. "The task of weighing national security concerns has been given to the Department of Commerce, which has been charged with the responsibility to 'review each exclusion request ... for specific national security considerations.'" U.S. Steel's claim that litigation should continue since a settlement would be a "miscarriage of justice for U.S. taxpayers that have funded" the U.S. defense against NLMK's case, the importer said.