Trade Law Daily is a service of Warren Communications News.
Subscriber Login

Section 232 Exclusions

Companies that import steel and aluminum goods that are subject to Section 232 tariffs may seek exclusions from these tariffs for their products with the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security. Oftentimes, these exclusion requests will be rejected, particularly where a domestic U.S. steel or aluminum company can demonstrate that they are capable of making the importer's products in sufficient quantity and quality. After an exclusion request has been denied, the importer challenge this decision at the Court of International Trade. Frequently, these challenges will be referred to mediation before a CIT judge, however, cases that proceed to litigation will involve evidentiary disputes regarding the U.S. companies' manufacturing capacity and quality.

to
articlessource documents
Refine Topic Search
Clear Terms

Search Primer

Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.

Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").

Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).

Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

DOJ's Statute of Limitations Argument Too Late in Section 232 Case, Exporters Argue
May 18, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Department of Justice's argument claiming that the Voestalpine USA Corp. and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel case in the Court of International Trade is beyond the statute of limitations was made improperly and should be disregarded, the importers said in a May 17 surreply to DOJ's motion to dismiss. DOJ made its statute of limitations argument for the first time in its reply brief and not in the motion to dismiss, and in any case a question over the statute of limitations of its argument is not relevant to the court's subject matter jurisdiction counsel for Voestalpine and Bilstein argued (Voestalpine USA Corp. et al v. United States, CIT # 20-03829).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Section 232 Exclusions