The "337 Investigation" encountered for the first time in the history of China's steel trade has sent new news.

On March 2, as Baosteel's attorney for the "337 Investigation", Lawyer Ran Ruixue, a partner of Covington & Burling Law Firm, confirmed to reporters that on February 27, US time, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) overthrew The preliminary ruling on the anti-circumvention point in Baosteel’s "337 Investigation" case. According to the ITC official website, the anti-circumvention point failed to pass the ITC review, and ITC sent the point back to the administrative judge for retrial.

The "Daily Business News" reporter was informed that in this "337 Investigation", Chinese steel companies had previously won the preliminary rulings of antitrust and trade secrets complaints. It is understood that U.S. Steel applied for a 337 investigation on China's carbon steel and alloy steel products exported to the United States, which mainly charged three complaints, namely, antitrust complaints, anti-circumvention complaints, and trade secret complaints. According to Ran Ruixue, the defendants listed in this "337 Investigation" include Baosteel, Anshan Iron and Steel, Wuhan Iron and Steel, Shougang, Hegang, Shagang, Maanshan Iron and Steel and other domestic top-ranking steel companies.

The previous three points of appeal won the preliminary ruling

The "337 investigation" initiated by the United States on China's exports of carbon steel and alloy steel products to the United States has made new changes to the points of anti-circumvention complaints. Ran Ruixue stated that the plaintiff, U.S. Steel, did not meet the corresponding requirements when the administrative judge had established jurisdiction over the anti-circumvention point. Based on this, the Chinese side filed a motion to terminate the investigation at the beginning of the case, and the judge supported it. Chinese side. According to the reporter's understanding, this also represents that the Chinese steel company won the preliminary ruling on the anti-circumvention point at that time.

However, the deliberation of anti-circumvention points will start again. According to ITC's official website, on February 27th, US time, when ITC was conducting a review, the result of the case was not supported and was sent back to the administrative judge for retrial. Ran Ruixue introduced that after the administrative judge has completed the trial according to the normal investigation procedures, the case will be reviewed by the ITC. According to the reporter's discovery, this means that the anti-circumvention point in the case will go through procedures such as the exchange of evidence.

On April 26, 2016, U.S. Steel Corporation filed a lawsuit with ITC in accordance with Section 337 of the "U.S. Tariff Act of 1930", which mainly included three points of complaint. Chinese steel companies relied on the China Iron and Steel Association to "conspire to manipulate" product prices and exports. (Anti-monopoly complaint point), mark “false” origin to circumvent the US double anti-tax order (anti-circumvention complaint point), and Chinese steel companies “steal” the plaintiff’s advanced high-strength steel technology secrets (trade secrets) through so-called hacking attacks Complaint point), requesting ITC to issue a general exclusion order and a prohibition order.

Chinese steel companies have obtained the results of a retrial of the anti-circumvention complaint. The trade secret complaint and the antitrust complaint have won the preliminary ruling before.

The relevant staff of China Baowu Group Co., Ltd. confirmed that Baosteel had won a preliminary ruling on the trade secret complaint. On February 15, 2017 local time, U.S. Steel submitted an application to ITC to withdraw allegations of infringement of Baosteel’s trade secrets, and partially terminated its "337 investigation" on carbon steel and alloy steel products exported from China to the United States in April last year. . On February 22, the administrative judge issued a preliminary ruling, announcing the complete termination of the trade secret investigation against Baosteel.

At the same time, the anti-monopoly lawsuit also won the preliminary ruling. Ran Ruixue stated that at the early stage of the case, the Chinese side submitted a motion to terminate the investigation on the grounds that the plaintiff, U.S. Steel, did not have the qualifications to be the subject of litigation to file antitrust charges in the Section 337 investigation. The judge supported China's request and terminated the investigation. The case is currently in the review stage, and the anti-monopoly complaint will be reviewed in mid-March.

Chinese companies should actively respond to the suit

Although this is the first "337 investigation" encountered in the history of China's steel trade, this is not the first time a Chinese company has encountered a 337 investigation, nor is it the case that every time it encounters a 337 investigation, it wins the lawsuit. According to data from the Economic Observer, in the 47 "337 investigation" cases that have been judged in the past, the loss rate of Chinese companies is as high as 60%, which is much higher than the international average loss rate of 26%.

Ran Ruixue said that for this "337 Investigation", Chinese steel companies responded so positively because the situation is very special. The range of products involved in the case is extremely wide. The products in question basically involve all products exported to the United States by the Chinese steel industry. The case is also very sensitive. If antitrust allegations are established, similar cases will rush in, and other industries in China will also be involved. Gao's "337 Investigation".

The relevant staff of China Baowu Iron and Steel Group stated that whether Baosteel responded to the lawsuit after comprehensive consideration. On May 27, 2016, Baosteel Group released an announcement of relevant opinions on its official website, and Baosteel will actively respond to the investigation to defend its legitimate rights and interests.

Ran Ruixue suggested that for the US "337 Investigation", Chinese companies with strength and ideals should actively respond and brave their swords. If Chinese companies want to have the right to speak on the international stage, international lawsuits similar to the US "337 Investigation" must go through. stage.