INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGED DUMPING OF U-SECTIONS, I-SECTIONS, AND H-SECTIONS OF IRON OR NON-ALLOY STEEL, NOT FURTHER WORKED THAN HOT-ROLLED, HOT-DRAWN, OR EXTRUDED, OF A HEIGHT OF 80 MM OR MORE (EXCLUDING H-SECTIONS OF A HEIGHT GREATER THAN 200MM) AND EQUAL ANGLES OF IRON OR NON-ALLOY STEEL, NOT FURTHER WORKED THAN HOT-ROLLED, HOT DRAWN, OR EXTRUDED ORIGINATING IN OR IMPORTED FROM THE PEOPLES’ REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND: FINAL SUBMISSION ON ESSENTIAL FACTS

On 28 February 2025, NEASA and other stakeholders received ITAC’s Essential Facts letter, in which it confirms its consideration to make the provisional duties on structural (long) steel products imported from China and Thailand, permanent. This letter further requested interested parties and stakeholders in the steel industry to make final submissions thereon before 7 March 2025.

On 28 February 2025, NEASA received the official notification from AMSA that it is closing its structural (long) steel business. On 3 March 2025, NEASA further received official confirmation from AMSA that AMRAS is included in the closing down process of AMSA.

NEASA immediately wrote to ITAC requesting motivation on why it would consider proceeding with the implementation of the anti-dumping duties on structural (long) steel, if AMSA is closing its long steel business, effectively removing AMSA as the sole applicant for the anti-dumping duties, for material injury allegedly suffered by virtue of imported structural (long) steel.

Without an answer from ITAC regarding its motivation to proceed with the implementation of the duties in light of AMSA’s closure, NEASA is not in a position to make meaningful submissions on the Essential Facts letter.

No answer was received by ITAC in this regard, which necessitated NEASA to apply for extension on the time period designated for the submission of commentary. ITAC denied NEASA’s request for extension.

ITAC elected not to answer NEASA’s question regarding AMSA’s closure and its effect on the consideration of the anti-dumping duties, and merely stated that “…the Commission has not made its final decision on the matter…” and consequently, in absence of any answer of substance, NEASA can only make the following statements regarding the Essential Facts letter:

• ITAC justifies the imposition of these duties based on the material injury suffered by AMSA by virtue of the imports.

• Since AMSA is closing its structural (long) steel business, what is the purpose of continuing with the duties? It simply makes no sense.

• AMSA, in its notification regarding its closure of the long steel business, alleges the scrap advantage over iron ore as a contributing factor of its business closure, citing:

“The scrap export tax has not been removed and the Preferential Pricing System, allowing steel producers using Electric Arc Furnaces a substantial unfair advantage remains in place, despite evidence from an independent Econometrix study on the damaging impact of the scrap Price Preference System and export tax.”

Bearing in mind that the mini mills in South Africa cannot, with regards to size and quality, manufacture the structural (long) steel products that AMSA does, due to their use of scrap metal as input material, this statement makes no sense – the PPS with regards to scrap metal, does not give the subsidized mini mills any competitive advantage over AMSA when it comes to long steel, and therefore cannot be blamed for “contributing” to AMSA’s decline.

In addition, AMSA admits in its application for duties, that it is the sole manufacturer of these long steel products.

What is the purpose of ITAC requesting further inputs?

NEASA, at great cost to itself and its members in the steel industry, has made extensive submissions to ITAC in this regard, including an oral hearing. The arguments made by NEASA’s representative during the oral hearing were compelling. Not a single argument made by the NEASA representative was countered by the ITAC commissioners and almost no engagement took place, which made constructive interaction on this issue extremely complicated.

If NEASA’s arguments were not valid, in the opinion of the ITAC commissioners, they should have raised these differences. Without that, constructive engagement was impossible. To now receive notice that ITAC has, in essence, rejected all submissions and arguments by NEASA and other stakeholders in the industry, what more can be said to convince ITAC not to impose these downstream destructive duties?

NEASA has mentioned this before and we do it here, once again. ITAC’s ‘consultations’ with the industry appear to be nothing more than mere tick box exercises in order to adhere to the prescribed administrative processes. The business- and job destruction in the ranks of the downstream apparently has no impact on ITAC’s decisions.

Kind regards

G.C. Papenfus

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

For more information

NEASA Media Department

media@neasa.co.za

NEASA ... the only labour law specialist an employer will ever need.

Click here to join NEASA

Steel Industry: Duties on long steel products: ITAC asks for further input - but why?

STEEL INDUSTRY

DUTIES ON LONG STEEL PRODUCTS

ITAC ASKS FOR FURTHER INPUT – BUT WHY?

POPULAR TOPICS

Go Back to Newsletters Home