Advertisement

April 24, 2014

New International Trade Commission (ITC) Investigation Could Affect Supply of Oil and Gas Tubulars

On July 2nd, U.S. steel pipe “tubular” makers filed a petition with the U.S. International Trade Commission requesting that the Commission conduct an investigation into alleged dumping of oil country tubular goods (OCTGs) from several countries. In re: Oil Country Tubular Goods, U.S. International Trade Commission Preliminary Investigation (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-499-500 and 731-TA-1215-1223 (Preliminary)). The petition, filed on behalf of the United States Steel Corporation and several other makers of tubular products could impact pricing and supplies of OCTGs, which refers to pipe and tube products used in the oil and gas industry.

The complaint asks the Commission to undertake an investigation into whether antidumping duties should be imposed on tubular exports coming to the U.S. from India, Korea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam.

Under Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Commission may impose antidumping duties on foreign imports if a foreign government or business is providing “a countervailable subsidy with respect to the manufacture, production, or export of a class or kind of merchandise imported, or sold for importation, into the United States” and the Commission determines that an industry in the United States is materially injured, is threatened with material injury, or is materially retarded. The Commission can initiate an antidumping duty investigation whenever it determines, “from information available to it, that a formal investigation is warranted into the question of whether the elements necessary for the imposition of a duty under section 731 exist.” In the case of a formal petition, the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that an antidumping proceeding “shall be initiated whenever an interested party … files a petition with the [Commission], on behalf of an industry, which alleges the elements necessary for the imposition of the duty imposed by section 731, and which is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting those allegations.”

This obviously isn’t the first time a dumping issue has touched the energy industry. In 2009, U.S. industry filed a similar petition against imports of OCTG pipe products from China. (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-463 (Final)). In that investigation, the Commission concluded U.S. industry was threatened with material injury due to imports from China of certain OCTGs. The Commission imposed anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese OCTG imports from 29.9 to 99.14 percent. As a result, Chinese OCTG imports dropped significantly in 2010. In another case in 2012, the Commission determined that U.S. solar manufacturers were harmed by imports of photovoltaic cells and modules from China. In that decision, the U.S. indicated it would collect tariffs between 18%-250% depending on how far below fair market value the Chinese products were sold. While solar manufactures in the U.S. applauded the decision, project developers were inevitably affected by changes in supply and prices.

© 2014 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

About the Author

Associate

Michael Weller is a member of the firm's environmental and natural resources practice.  Mr. Weller advises developers, manufacturers, refiners, industry trade associations, investor groups and financial institutions, assisting them in the management of environmental risks, liabilities and regulatory compliance issues arising in the context of enforcement actions, litigation and corporate transactions.

202.828.5812

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 www.NatLawReview.com 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 www.NatLawReview.com  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 shoul