There is "absolutely no substantive justification" to give the Commerce Department another 91 days to review NLMK Pennsylvania's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests, the company argued in an April 20 brief opposing the extension bid at the Court of International Trade (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).
Importer SXP Schulz Xtruded Products needed a protest to properly challenge CBP's failure to apply a Section 232 duty exclusion on four entries of its steel forged and turned bars, the Court of International Trade ruled. Dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that SXP could have filed for an extension of liquidation while it was waiting for the Commerce Department to correct the erroneous exclusion it issued or simply have filed a protest, which would have queued up jurisdiction under Section 1581(a).
A court order granting an importer Section 232 exclusions for tin mill products would be "extraordinary relief," and the Court of International Trade should instead remand the denied exclusions to the Commerce Department for further consideration, DOJ said in an April 11 response brief at the Court of International Trade. While DOJ argued that Commerce correctly denied six Section 232 exclusion requests, it seeks to reconsider another two, admitting that some of Seneca's arguments warrant further consideration (Seneca Foods Corporation v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's steel and aluminum tariff action under Section 232.
The victories that countries won at the World Trade Organization over American steel and aluminum tariffs (see 2212090060) will only complicate the discussion on how to bring back binding dispute settlement, panelists said at a Washington International Trade Association event.
The report from the commerce secretary concluding a Section 232 investigation is not "purely advisory" and actually gives the president a new power to regulate trade, so it "must be subject to judicial review" under the Administrative Procedure Act, petitioners led by USP Holdings argued at the U.S. Supreme Court in a March 2 brief (USP Holdings v. United States, U.S.C. # 22-565).
The Commerce Department wrongly denied Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products despite a lack of domestic supply, Seneca Foods Corporation said in its Feb. 28 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The motion challenges eight decisions by Commerce denying Seneca’s requests for exclusions from Section 232 tariffs for tin mill products consisting of steel (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
The commerce secretary's report allowing President Donald Trump to take tariff action on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act nor can it be reviewed for arbitrariness, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 20 reply brief at the U.S. Supreme Court. Even if it was up for review, the secretary did not misconstrue the statute since it does not require the report to make a finding on the imminent nature of any threat to national security, the government said (USP Holdings, et al. v. United States, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 22-565).
Protests seeking refunds for granted exclusions from Section 232 tariffs must be filed in a timely manner, even when the process is complicated by government errors, the DOJ argued in a Jan. 27 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade (SXP Schulz Xtruded Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00136).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 27 order dismissed U.S. Steel Corp.'s appeal of its bid to intervene in a case challenging a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion denial. Filing a motion for voluntary dismissal on Jan. 18, U.S. Steel said that given the resolution of the matter in California Steel v. U.S. (see 2209080024), in which the appellate court said that a group of domestic steel companies do not have standing to intervene in these types of actions, the case should be dismissed (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1448).