The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 10 order stayed a case on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions for 60 days so the parties can conclude "a process of coordinating how" Commerce's decision on remand to grant 45 of the exclusions "should be effectuated." The agency changed course last year, granting the exclusions for importer Mirror Metals after finding that the relevant steel article could not be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (see 2204190016) (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 21-00144).
The Commerce Department ignored evidence against an objector's claim that it could provide domestic tin mill products to make up the shortfall when it denied Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products by Seneca Foods, the company continued to argue during July 11 oral arguments at the Court of International Trade (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on July 5 in importer PrimeSource Building Products' suit on President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. The move comes after the court rejected PrimeSource's request to stay the mandate pending a final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court on any petition for a writ of certiorari (see 2306270037). In the case, the Federal Circuit said that Trump legally imposed the tariffs beyond procedural time limits, ruling that such action can be taken if it is in line with the original tariffs' plan of action (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
CAFC Rejects Importer's Bid for Stay of Mandate in Case on Section 232 Duties Covering 'Derivatives'
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected importer PrimeSource Building Products' bid to stay the court's issuance of its mandate in a suit over President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto derivative products. The court ruled that the president legally imposed the tariffs, which were set beyond procedural time limits, and recently rejected PrimeSource's request for a reconsideration of the opinion (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
The U.S. and India announced a deal June 22 that will end India’s retaliatory tariffs on some U.S. goods while leaving in place the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs that prompted them, and also end six World Trade Organization disputes brought by both the U.S. and India.
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 Court of International Trade dismissed a customs suit filed by Ivaco Rolling Miss 2004 and Sivaco Wire Group 2004 for lack of prosecution. The case concerned the companies' claims that its steel articles were improperly denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions. The trade court said the case, which was placed on the customs case management calendar, was not removed at the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 v. U.S., CIT # 21-00234).
CBP illegally failed to apply exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to eight shipments of hot wrought steel round bars even though the exclusions were granted after the shipments entered the U.S., importer Saarsteel argued in a complaint last week at the Court of International Trade. The company said it is CBP's practice to allow an importer to claim a granted exclusion via a post-summary correction or a protest when the exclusion was granted after the entry was made but "relates back to a submission date covering the entry" (Saarsteel Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00271).
Importer Seneca Foods Corp. asked the Court of International Trade to hold oral argument in its suit on the Commerce Department's denials of the company's Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products. Seneca said that oral argument is "appropriate" since resolution of the matter is "important to Seneca and its business operations" and "presents important questions about the manner in which Commerce administers the Section 232 tariff exclusion process as a whole." Oral argument would allow for a "deeper analysis" of the key issues in the proceeding, the importer said. The government took no position on the motion (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
The Court of International Trade should overturn the Commerce Department's denials of Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products by Seneca Foods, because the denials ignored evidence against an objector's claim that it could provide domestic tin mill products to make up the shortfall, Seneca argued in a May 2 reply brief (Seneca Foods Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).