DOJ Asks CIT to Step in After No Agreement With Importer on Bonding in Section 232 Appeal
DOJ on March 18 asked the Court of International Trade to step in and order an importer to post deposits or post a bond for its entries during a Section 232 tariff appeal, telling the court that it has been unable to reach an agreement with Oman Fasteners on how to secure its revenue should it prevail in an appeal of a Court of International Trade decision that invalidated Section 232 "derivatives" tariffs (Oman Fasteners, et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00037).
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 trade court had in October stayed its decision, putting a hold on liquidation of Oman Fasteners' entries subject to Section 232 tariffs but directing Oman Fasteners and the government to negotiate on how to ensure the government gets paid the derivatives tariffs its owed should it win the appeal (see 2110150029).
Oman Fasteners has since told DOJ that bonding for its subject entries covered by Section 232 tariffs is too costly. Instead, Oman wants to deposit the duties into a private escrow pending the appeal. DOJ says that such an arrangement is without precedent and disregards CIT's previous order to come to agreement with the government.
The government also said Oman Fasteners could instead deposit the duties with CBP, "as other importers have been doing in all but one of the other cases that have similarly challenged the Section 232 tariffs imposed by Proclamation 9980. ... But Oman Fasteners was nevertheless unwilling to deposit the estimated duties, despite the legal assurance that all such estimated duty deposits would be subject to refund with interest upon liquidation in accordance with the Court’s final decision if it prevailed."