Steel, Aluminum Exclusion Process Still Problematic, Walorski Says
Despite a lack of response to her last two letters, Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind,, has sent another letter to the Commerce Department about what she called "a glaring lack of transparency, fairness, efficiency and consistency" in how the steel and aluminum Section 232 exclusion requests are handled. She noted that this time, she is also sending the letter to the inspector general for the department.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The lengthy letter, which also includes extensive data to back up its claims, describes thousands of rejections based on objections that do not meet the department's standards, as described in the regulations for the exclusion process. For instance, there were more than 6,800 times that steelmakers did not say how long it would take them to produce the products in question, though the regulation says the steelmaker should have the ability to deliver within eight weeks. Even when they did answer the question, about two-thirds said it would take them longer than eight weeks. Why were requests denied if the objectors didn't follow the rules, she asked. Moreover, she said that some objections were posted more than 30 days after the exclusion request was posted, although, again the regulations say objections have to be posted within 30 days.
She said that through Oct. 10, the department has released 11,501 steel and 621 aluminum decisions in which it addressed whether there was domestic availability. "Of those, 1,919 and 175 respectively were approved, resulting in 16.69% and 28.18% rates of approval," she said.
She noted that some objectors acknowledged they could not produce the whole amount the requester was seeking, and asked why the department didn't grant a partial exclusion, as it has the authority to do, instead of denying the request outright.
Walorski also pointed to inconsistencies in decisions, such as the fact that some requests were rejected because an HTS code doesn't exist, but that 85 other requests under that same code were approved. She said some exclusions were approved, but then denied, citing a "system error," with no further explanation.
She also criticized the department's administration of quotas, which are filled each quarter. Even companies that receive exclusions count against that quota, with the exception of the yearly quota. She said only granting quota exclusions in the fourth quarter makes supply difficult, which doesn't make sense if the department decided that there is not sufficient domestic supply of the product.