The Commerce Department erred in rejecting food and vegetable processing giant Seneca Foods Corporation's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, Seneca argued in an Aug. 19 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The vegetable canning company said that Commerce violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to meaningfully consider and explain its rejection of the exclusion requests (Seneca Foods Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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.
Companies to Appeal CIT Decision Tossing Section 232 Exclusion Challenge Due to Unliquidated Entries
Plaintiffs Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions (see 2206100048). Per a July 29 notice of appeal, the plaintiffs are taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated, and that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT #21-00186).
The Court of International Trade should circumvent the remand process and order the Commerce Department to grant exclusions to Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, steel company NLMK Pennsylvania argued in a July 22 brief. Likening its experience with the exclusion process at Commerce to "a bad remake of Groundhog Day," the plaintiff argued that Commerce has repeatedly ignored the record evidence which plainly shows that the U.S. companies do not have the capacity to fill NLMK's requests (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT #21-00507).
The U,S, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit needs to reconsider its dismissal of a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, plaintiff-appellants in the case, led by USP Holdings, argued in a July 22 motion for reconsideration. The plaintiff-appellants said that the court "failed to consider" the effect of the Administrative Procedure Act on the standard of review issue when finding that the scope of judicial review given to the Commerce Secretary's determination of threat to impair national security was identical to that given to the president, whose findings are not subject to the APA (USP Holdings v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1726).
The Court of International Trade entered stipulated judgment July 19 in a case over denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions. The case was reported to have been settled via mediation in February, with the trade court saying all the issues brought by plaintiffs Voestalpine High Performance Metals and Edro Specialty Steels were settled (see 2202080057). The court then held a status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries. The parties reached a remedy stipulating that CBP will reliquidate the liquidated entries without the Section 232 duties and that refunds will be paid with interest, the judgment said. Voestalpine and Edro brought their case to CIT to contest the denial of 502 exclusion requests for high alloyed specialty steel products (see 2110010032) (Voestalpine High Performance Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00093).
President Donald Trump's move to expand the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto "derivative" products was part of the president's original "plan of action," thus making the expansion legal, the U.S. argued in a June 10 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Centering the reply on a key Federal Circuit opinion, Transpacific Steel v. U.S., which said the president can carry out certain Section 232 tariff action beyond procedural deadlines, DOJ told the appellate court that the derivatives expansion sought to carry out the president's original goal of reaching an 80% domestic capacity utilization rate for steel and aluminum.
The Court of International Trade in a June 1 opinion made public June 9 dismissed a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann and importer Gulf Coast Express Pipeline. Judge Timothy Reif said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 9 opinion dismissed a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The plaintiffs, led by USP Holdings, argued that the Commerce Department report preceding presidential action violated the law since it failed to outline an imminent threat to the domestic industry as required by the statute and was unsupported by substantial evidence. A three-judge panel at the court ruled against these arguments, holding that there is no "imminence requirement" in the statute and that the threat determination is not reviewable under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard since the secretary's action "is only reviewable for compliance with the statute."