The International Trade Commission was wrong not to cumulate imports of cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil with imports from China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. in a five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the products, U.S. company Cleveland-Cliffs argued in an Oct. 5 complaint the Court of International Trade. The ITC further erred by focusing on the likely volume of the Brazilian imports in its cumulation analysis in the injury investigation, resulting in an "impermissible circular" injury analysis, the complaint said (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00257).
Steel company NLMK Pennsylvania has "no basis" to argue that the Court of International Trade should take over the Section 232 tariff exclusion process and simply award the importer hundreds of millions of dollars, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the trade court. Looking to rebut NLMK's arguments seeking to discredit the Commerce Department's denials of NLMK's 58 Section 232 exclusion requests, the U.S. said that the relief that the steel company seeks is "clear overreach" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT #21-00507).
The U.S.'s reversal of its position by refusing to allow plaintiff Oman Fasteners to post bond for its potential Section 232 steel and aluminum liability "smacks of outright bad faith," Oman Fasteners argued in a Sept. 20 emergency motion to compel at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiff argued that the court should compel the U.S. to comply with an order it issued in April, otherwise the U.S. could "artificially inflate" the exporter's dumping margin in an ongoing antidumping proceeding, "permanently costing Oman Fasteners millions of dollars" (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #20-00037).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A group of domestic steel manufacturers doesn't have the right to intervene in a spate of challenges to denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Sept. 8 opinion. Ruling against the Court of International Trade's opinion that the would-be intervenors did not establish standing, Judges Kimberly Moore and Todd Hughes ultimately found that the interveners nevertheless failed to identify a legally protectable interest to qualify as intervenors under the trade court's rules.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 8 opinion denied a group of domestic steel manufacturers the right to intervene in six cases challenging denied exclusions to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Judges Kimberly Moore and Todd Hughes affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling that the domestic producers did not have a legally protectable interest in the case, though they parted from the trade court's position in ruling that the manufacturers established standing to intervene. While they had standing, the lack of a legally protectable interest stunted their bid to join the litigation. Judge Pauline Newman dissented from the majority opinion, ruling the manufacturers have clear economic interests in the tariff exclusion requests, establishing their right to intervene.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs after denying a petition for a full court rehearing. The appellate court previously dismissed the case, led by USP Holdings, in June, unconvinced of the importers' arguments that the Commerce Department in its underlying report was required to find an imminent threat to domestic industry and did not do so (see 2206090047). The appellants filed for the rehearing, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, arguing that the authority to regulate international trade is a "major question" that requires explicit delegation from Congress (see 2207220071) (USP Holdings v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1726).
Importer Mirror Metals and the Commerce Department need more time to work out the details of refunding Section 232 duties following Commerce's decision to grant retroactive tariff exclusion bids, according to an Aug. 22 status report filed with the Court of International Trade (Mirror Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00144).