A group of domestic steel manufacturers doesn't have the right to intervene in a spate of challenges to denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Sept. 8 opinion. Ruling against the Court of International Trade's opinion that the would-be intervenors did not establish standing, Judges Kimberly Moore and Todd Hughes ultimately found that the interveners nevertheless failed to identify a legally protectable interest to qualify as intervenors under the trade court's rules.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 8 opinion denied a group of domestic steel manufacturers the right to intervene in six cases challenging denied exclusions to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Judges Kimberly Moore and Todd Hughes affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling that the domestic producers did not have a legally protectable interest in the case, though they parted from the trade court's position in ruling that the manufacturers established standing to intervene. While they had standing, the lack of a legally protectable interest stunted their bid to join the litigation. Judge Pauline Newman dissented from the majority opinion, ruling the manufacturers have clear economic interests in the tariff exclusion requests, establishing their right to intervene.
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.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs after denying a petition for a full court rehearing. The appellate court previously dismissed the case, led by USP Holdings, in June, unconvinced of the importers' arguments that the Commerce Department in its underlying report was required to find an imminent threat to domestic industry and did not do so (see 2206090047). The appellants filed for the rehearing, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, arguing that the authority to regulate international trade is a "major question" that requires explicit delegation from Congress (see 2207220071) (USP Holdings v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1726).
Importer Mirror Metals and the Commerce Department need more time to work out the details of refunding Section 232 duties following Commerce's decision to grant retroactive tariff exclusion bids, according to an Aug. 22 status report filed with the Court of International Trade (Mirror Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00144).
The Commerce Department erred in rejecting food and vegetable processing giant Seneca Foods Corporation's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, Seneca argued in an Aug. 19 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The vegetable canning company said that Commerce violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to meaningfully consider and explain its rejection of the exclusion requests (Seneca Foods Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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.
Companies to Appeal CIT Decision Tossing Section 232 Exclusion Challenge Due to Unliquidated Entries
Plaintiffs Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions (see 2206100048). Per a July 29 notice of appeal, the plaintiffs are taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated, and that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT #21-00186).