The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Oct. 3-9 and Oct. 10-16:
Section 232 Tariffs
The United States currently maintains a 25% tariff on steel imports and 10% on tariff on aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. In 2018, the Trump administration imposed Section 232 Tariffs on steel and aluminum imports into the United States, citing national security concerns. The U.S. agreed to lift tariffs on Canada and Mexico after the signing of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), and reached deals with the European Union, Japan and other countries to replace the tariffs with quotas for steel and aluminum imports into the U.S.
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 following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Aug. 15-21 and 22-28:
Some companies said in recently submitted comments they used to benefit from Section 232 tariffs but no longer do. Others said they previously were able to mitigate the cost impact of Section 301 tariffs through exclusions, finding other suppliers or other trade benefits but can't anymore.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 1-7:
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 order granted a joint motion for stipulated judgment, granting refunds to importer Transpacific Steel for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid in error. The importer was originally granted three exclusions with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading listed in them. After having its resubmitted exclusion requests denied, Transpacific took to the trade court to seek the exclusions and refunds for the Section 232 duties paid. It received just that following a settlement with the U.S. (Transpacific Steel v. United States, CIT #21-00362).
Across three days of testimony July 20-22, the International Trade Commission heard from dozens of companies, trade groups and advocacy groups about the economic impact of Section 301 tariffs and Section 232 tariffs and quotas. The tariffs and quotas on metals inspired fewer witnesses than the China tariffs, but they were no less emphatic.The United Steelworkers said they strongly supported the tariffs and asked that they remain strong. Pete Trinidad, president of a USW local that represents 3,500 steel workers in Indiana, argued that the tariffs had either a small or no measurable effect on prices, according to a think tank study.
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 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 Secretary's 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." Judge Timothy Dyk, author of the opinion, also ruled that the statute grants the president the discretion to set the nature and duration of the tariffs.
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."