The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hold an oral argument on Jan. 10, 2023, at 10 a.m. EST in a case on whether President Donald Trump illegally expanded Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. According to the notice of oral argument, the court will hold the hearing in Courtroom 201 in the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building in Washington. In the case, the Court of International Trade said that Trump illegally expanded the tariffs to derivative products beyond the 105-day deadline to take tariff action that runs from the submission of a report from the commerce secretary. In Transpacific Steel v. U.S., however, the Federal Circuit said that Trump could take certain tariff actions beyond this deadline so long as it it was part of the original "plan of action" (see 2107130059) (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
The Supreme Court gave appellants, in a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, an extension to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. In the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that there is no requirement in the statute to find an imminent threat to the domestic industry before imposing Section 232 duties and that the threat determination is not reviewable under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard since the secretary's action "is only reviewable for compliance with the statute" (see 2206090047). The appellate court then denied a petition to rehear the challenge (see 2208190049). The appellants, led by USP Holdings, have through Dec. 16 to file the petition (USP Holdings v. United States, #21-1726).
U.S. Steel Corp., defendant-intervenor in a case over a denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion request, filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 14. The notice pointed to "developments" in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, California Steel Industries v. U.S., in which the appellate court denied U.S. Steel the right to intervene in a different challenge to Section 232 exclusion request denials. Those "developments" reference U.S. Steel Corp.'s motion for rehearing (see 2210250056), in which it argued that the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent. The defendant-intervenor alerted the trade court to these developments "as they may result in a change to Federal Circuit law regarding the rights of parties to intervene in actions before the Court" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
The whole U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should rehear a case on whether a group of domestic steel manufacturers have the right to intervene in cases challenging denied exclusion requests from Section 232 national security tariffs, U.S. Steel argued in an Oct. 24 motion for rehearing. The outcome of the litigation will have an "obvious impact" on U.S. Steel, and the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent, the appellant said.
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 21 opinion let exporter Oman Fasteners stop paying cash deposits over its potential Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff liability in a case on the validity of the national security duties on "derivative" products. A previous court order let Oman Fasteners stop making duty deposits after reaching an agreement with the U.S. on the resumption of bonding. The U.S. said the company wasn't entitled to bonding since it had failed to abide by the arrangement. A three-judge panel ruled that the U.S. shall exclude Oman Fasteners from the need to post cash deposits for potential Section 232 liability until the U.S. can get another order from the court or Oman Fasteners voluntarily enters into an agreement that modifies the terms of the court's opinion.
CBP's denial of plaintiff-appellant Borusan Mannesmann's post summary corrections (PSCs) and administrative refund request constitutes a protestable decision, meaning Borusan had jurisdiction to seek Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions, Borusan and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline argued in an Oct. 17 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also said that Federal Circuit precedent established that CBP's denial of a timely request for a refund of previously paid duties can constitute a protestable decision, and while these precedential opinions do not concern unliquidated entries as is the case with Borusan, there is nothing limiting these decisions (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).
The International Trade Commission was wrong not to cumulate imports of cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil with imports from China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. in a five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the products, U.S. company Cleveland-Cliffs argued in an Oct. 5 complaint the Court of International Trade. The ITC further erred by focusing on the likely volume of the Brazilian imports in its cumulation analysis in the injury investigation, resulting in an "impermissible circular" injury analysis, the complaint said (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00257).
Steel company NLMK Pennsylvania has "no basis" to argue that the Court of International Trade should take over the Section 232 tariff exclusion process and simply award the importer hundreds of millions of dollars, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the trade court. Looking to rebut NLMK's arguments seeking to discredit the Commerce Department's denials of NLMK's 58 Section 232 exclusion requests, the U.S. said that the relief that the steel company seeks is "clear overreach" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT #21-00507).
The U.S.'s reversal of its position by refusing to allow plaintiff Oman Fasteners to post bond for its potential Section 232 steel and aluminum liability "smacks of outright bad faith," Oman Fasteners argued in a Sept. 20 emergency motion to compel at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiff argued that the court should compel the U.S. to comply with an order it issued in April, otherwise the U.S. could "artificially inflate" the exporter's dumping margin in an ongoing antidumping proceeding, "permanently costing Oman Fasteners millions of dollars" (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #20-00037).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.