The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 13 said then-President Donald Trump legally revoked a Section 201 safeguard tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, in a decision that gives the president wide discretion in taking tariff action. Reversing the Court of International Trade's decision, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark said the president did not clearly misconstrue the statute to find that he could make a trade-restricting modification to past Section 201 tariff action.
Researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies expect the U.S. will get "a taste of its own medicine” when China appeals its loss over Section 232 retaliatory tariffs at the World Trade Organization, adding that China likely won't have to drop the tariffs since there is no appellate body to take that appeal.
A World Trade Organization dispute panel rejected China's claim that its retaliatory tariffs in response to Section 232 tariffs were justified because the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs were a safeguard in disguise.
The Court of International Trade improperly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a $5.7 million customs penalty suit against importer Katana Racing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an Aug. 3 opinion. While the trade court said Katana properly revoked a statute of limitations waiver making the U.S. government's suit untimely, Judges Sharon Prost, Alvin Schall and Todd Hughes said the statute of limitations "is not a jurisdictional time limit." Instead, it provides an "affirmative defense" that can be waived.
Federal Circuit judges cautioned counsel for importer Katana Racing against arguing whether the U.S. actually stated a claim for which relief can be granted, despite the fact that the Court of International Trade dismissed the case due to an expired statute of limitations. During the June 7 oral argument in the customs penalty suit, Judge Alvin Schall pointed out that the CIT judge did not decide the failure to state a claim issue, while Judge Todd Hughes said he thought it was "very unwise" to make this claim, seeing as argument over the issue would be precluded at the trade court if the appellate court were to rule on it (U.S. v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. # 22-1832).
The Commerce Department can legally deduct President Donald Trump's Section 232 duties from an exporter's U.S. price in antidumping duty proceedings, raising the respondent's dumping margin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said Trump's proclamation imposing the duties made clear that the Section 232 tariffs were meant to be added to any applicable antidumping duties. However, the appellate court clarified that this ruling only applies to Trump's Section 232 duties and not all presidential action taken under Section 232.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2022. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
CBP unlawfully imposed 20% additional duties on bifacial solar panels given that the Court of International Trade found the underlying presidential proclamation to be "null and void," argued Trina Solar in a Dec. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00321).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
An argument from apellees, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, in a Federal Circuit case that the safeguard statute implicitly limits the president to make "trade-liberalizing" measures relies on a "strained reading of the statutory contest," by placing undue emphasis on the fact that section 2254(b)(1)(B) lets the president find that the domestic industry "has made" a positive adjustment to import competition, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 17 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This position "relies on an illusory distinction between complete and ongoing adjustment," the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).