Importer Metal One America moved Aug. 31 to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade concerning its imports of hot-rolled high carbon wire rod tire cord made of steel. In the case, the importer said its product, classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7213.91.3011, qualifies for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs (Metal One America v. U.S., CIT # 21-00503).
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.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 23 upheld the Commerce Department's deduction of Section 232 duties paid by Turkish exporter Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi from its U.S. price in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani said she saw "no reason to vary" this finding, as previously made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, regarding the government's move to raise the duties solely on Turkish goods.
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.
Steel and aluminum importers should expect the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security to "conduct additional quantity certification reviews and more closely scrutinize the data points included in exclusion requests" following a Government Accountability Office report on the exclusion process, global firm Crowell & Moring said. The firm said importers could also face further scrutiny from CBP, who will be more closely examining Section 232 exclusion claims that are not properly filed.
Counsel for steel importer California Steel Industries requested a status conference regarding a pending motion from the Commerce Department for voluntary remand in a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion case. Since the last brief in the proceeding was filed over a year ago, on June 9, 2022, California Steel called for the conference regarding the "next steps to resolve" the company's claims while being "mindful of [Judge M. Miller Baker's] busy schedule" (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 10 order stayed a case on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions for 60 days so the parties can conclude "a process of coordinating how" Commerce's decision on remand to grant 45 of the exclusions "should be effectuated." The agency changed course last year, granting the exclusions for importer Mirror Metals after finding that the relevant steel article could not be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (see 2204190016) (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 21-00144).
The Commerce Department ignored evidence against an objector's claim that it could provide domestic tin mill products to make up the shortfall when it denied Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products by Seneca Foods, the company continued to argue during July 11 oral arguments at the Court of International Trade (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on July 5 in importer PrimeSource Building Products' suit on President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. The move comes after the court rejected PrimeSource's request to stay the mandate pending a final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court on any petition for a writ of certiorari (see 2306270037). In the case, the Federal Circuit said that Trump legally imposed the tariffs beyond procedural time limits, ruling that such action can be taken if it is in line with the original tariffs' plan of action (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
CAFC Rejects Importer's Bid for Stay of Mandate in Case on Section 232 Duties Covering 'Derivatives'
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected importer PrimeSource Building Products' bid to stay the court's issuance of its mandate in a suit over President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto derivative products. The court ruled that the president legally imposed the tariffs, which were set beyond procedural time limits, and recently rejected PrimeSource's request for a reconsideration of the opinion (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).