July 24, 2014

New Antidumping Case Against Korean OCTG May Be More Than a Rumor This Time

For the past few years, rumors of a new antidumping duty case against Korean oil country tubular goods (OCTG) have circulated within the industry. But each time, no new petition was filed. In January of this year, the rumor mill heated up again, with industry publications reporting that a case against Korean OCTG as being “imminent.”

While the rumors may once again end up as empty threats, all the signs may indeed be pointing to a new case being filed as early as the end of this month. In our experience, a new antidumping case is often presaged by a number of “clues” that relate to import trends and industry performance.

In the case of Korean OCTG, the “clues” include:

  • Increasing imports of OCTG by Korea. As shown below, Korean imports account for the largest source of imports. Moreover, Korean imports have grown significantly for the past three years both in absolute quantity and as a share of all imports.

 Global Investments

Source: Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis (SIMA), US Department of Commerce

  • Falling prices of Korean OCTG. Prices of OCTG imported from Korea have been falling steadily. While the decreasing prices do reflect the overall market trend, the prices of Korean OCTG are much lower than imports from many other countries. For example, the average import value for Korean OCTG was $967 per MT, compared to $1667 per MT for Canadian imports and $1344 per MT for average of all imports. See below graph for a depiction of the falling trend.

US Oil Imports

  • Losses by the U.S. industry. The major U.S. producers of OCTG, such as United States Steel, continue to report losses. For example, United States Steel reported a net loss of $124 million for 2012, and fourth quarter 2012 net loss of $50 million. Revenue fell by 6.9% for United States Steel.

Of course, these indicators do not guarantee that a new antidumping petition will be filed. However, they do reflect several of the major factors of a successful antidumping duty petition. Moreover, the rumors also imply that the countervailing duty petition may be filed along with an antidumping duty petition. Given this, exporters, importers and purchasers of OCTG from Korea should take these signs seriously and start preparing for the possible case. Some of the steps that exporters may take in preparation include:

  1. Review and analyze all sales of OCTG to the United States and to Korea;
  2. Review and analyze cost of producing OCTG;
  3. Conduct an antidumping and countervailing “audit” to determine potential dumping margins and subsidy rates;
  4. Identify potential issues and strategies;
  5. Collect and organize all relevant records and data that will be requested in an investigation.

In our experience, early preparation has often been the key to a successful outcome in an antidumping or countervailing case.

©2014 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Rosa Jeong, Intellectual Property Attorney, Greenberg Traurig Law Firm

Rosa S. Jeong is a shareholder in Greenberg Traurig's Global Trade Practice Group in Washington, D.C.  Her practice focuses on all aspects of international trade laws, including trade remedy proceedings before the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. International Trade Commission, federal courts, and the World Trade Organization.  She has counseled and represented companies in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, and appeals of such cases in the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  She has also...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.