The Court of International Trade again struck down the Trump administration's withdrawal of an exclusion from the Section 201 solar safeguard measures for bifacial solar panels, in its second opinion rejecting Trump administration's elimination of the exclusion as many days. Judge Gary Katzmann found that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusion withdrawal was an "arbitrary and capricious agency decision" and represented a move with no statutory authority. Just a day earlier, Katzmann ruled against a presidential proclamation attempting to withdraw the bifacial panel exclusion, which came as a direct response to the CIT's preliminary injunction in the case over the USTR's move.
Section 201 Safeguards
Section 201 or “safeguard” actions are steps the President can take to provide temporary relief for an industry through the imposition of tariffs or quotas to create a more competitive environment for said industry. Section 201 actions are considered consistent with U.S. international obligations if they conform to the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Safeguards. To enact Section 201 Safeguards, a U.S. company must first file a complaint with the International Trade Commission, which then makes a determination if the industry is injured by the importation of the goods in question. If the investigation is affirmative, the President may enact the safeguards.
The Court of International Trade struck down the U.S. Trade Representative's attempt to withdraw an exclusion on bifacial solar panels from the Section 201 safeguard measures on solar cells in a Nov. 17 decision. Judge Gary Katzmann found that USTR lacked the statutory authority to withdraw the exclusion. The opinion is the second in as many days over the Trump administration's termination of the exclusion, following a Nov. 16 decision that struck down the presidential proclamation issued after CIT imposed a preliminary injunction on USTR's action.
President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion granted to bifacial solar panels is a "clear misconstruction" of the law since the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures, the Court of International Trade said Nov. 16, reversing the revocation of the exclusion.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 16 ruled against President Donald Trump's decision to revoke an exclusion for bifacial panels from Section 201 safeguard duties on solar cells. The trade court ruled his proclamation revoking the exclusion, issued in the midst of litigation over a similar action previously taken by the U.S. Trade Representative, was a "clear misconstruction" of the law and amounted to action outside the president's authority. The court said that the law only permits the president to make "trade-liberalizing modifications" to existing safeguards.
Tariff rate quotas of 30% imposed in 2018 under a global safeguard tariff against solar cells and solar panels were legal under international trade law, a panel at the World Trade Organization announced. The Section 201 tariffs fell to 25%, then 20%, and were supposed to fall to 15% in 2021, but are at 18% instead (see 1711010040 and 2010130028).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
In dueling briefs filed to the Court of International Trade in a case over the president's decision to reverse a safeguard exemption on bifacial solar panels, the Department of Justice and plaintiffs led by the Solar Energy Industries Association argued over whether a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion is relevant to their case. The decision, Transpacific Steel LLC et al. v. U.S., found that the president could hike Section 232 national security tariffs beyond time limits imposed by the statute (see 2107130059). DOJ in its brief said that the decision lends itself to ruling in the government's favor in the case of the solar panels. SEIA said that the decision has "little relevance" to its case since the decision deals with "an entirely different statute," in its letter (Solar Energy Industries Association et al. v. United States, CIT #29-03941).
Deference Argument in Solar Panel Tariff Exemption Reversal Eliminates Check on Executive, SEIA Says
The Department of Justice's argument that the president should be granted deference to determine whether the procedural boxes have been ticked when eliminating a tariff exemption would eliminate a key check on executive power, counsel for the Solar Energy Industries Association said during July 13 oral argument. The proceedings before Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann come amid SEIA's challenge to President Donald Trump's revocation of an exemption to Section 201 safeguard tariffs on bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03941).
The Solar Energy Industries Association continued to push back on the government's arguments that President Donald Trump properly considered the domestic industry's views when he removed an exemption to Section 201 tariffs on bifacial solar panels. The revocation of the tariff exemption should be reversed, plaintiffs challenging the president's actions said in a June 25 brief. Responding to a filing from the Department of Justice defending the decision to pull the tariff exemption, plaintiffs, led by the SEIA, further alleged procedural shortcomings in the president's actions (Solar Energy Industries Association et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03941).