US Steel Looks to Join Section 232 Exclusion Suit as Amicus After Failed Intervention Bid

U.S. Steel Corp. moved for leave to join importer California Steel Industries' case challenging rejections of its requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions as amicus curiae, after its efforts to intervene in the suit were thwarted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).

U.S. Steel said judicial precedent supports the firm's participation as an amicus since these types of briefs help the court more in instances where, "as here," the "amicus has a unique perspective" that can help the court "beyond what the parties can provide." The company said it's a leading manufacturer of semi-finished steel slab and "longtime supplier of steel slab" to California Steel Industries, as well as a provider of information to the Commerce Department in the underlying exclusion proceeding.

U.S. Steel added that it has an "interest in strong enforcement of the section 232 remedy, from which Plaintiff has requested exemption," though it acknowledged the court already said this interest is not a direct one. As a result, the company doesn't have standing to intervene in these types of actions (see 2209080024). However, U.S. Steel said its "indirect, economic interest" in the proceeding allows it to at least file an amicus brief.

The amicus brief itself argues that Commerce didn't act arbitrarily or capriciosuly in denying California Steel Industries' exclusion requests. Various Commerce officials independently reviewing the record "came to the same conclusion: U. S. Steel provided sufficient evidence of the domestic industry’s capability to supply the steel product described in CSI’s exclusion requests to support Commerce’s denial of those requests," the brief said.

In addition, U.S. Steel said California Steel posed the incorrect legal standard for Commerce's evaluation of a Section 232 exclusion request. The importer said the president told Commerce to grant exclusion if it finds that any steel product for which an exclusion is requested is not made in the U.S. in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a "satisfactory quality."

U.S. Steel said in response that the president didn't "direct" Commerce to grant exclusions but rather "authorized" the commerce secretary to grant Section 232 relief if the secretary found that a "particular steel article should be excluded." Availability and national security factors form the "basis of those determinations," the proposed amicus said.

The U.S. company also said the importer conflated a domestic producer's capability of making the requested slab with its willingness to provide it. "Because many economic factors that have nothing to do with national security impact the terms under which a capable producer is willing to sell a product to a particular purchaser -- or under which a purchaser is willing to source from a particular producer -- Commerce correctly considers only capability in determining which parties can submit an objection to a section 232 exclusion request, thus supporting the national security goals of the section 232 measures," the brief said.