The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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).
CBP illegally failed to apply exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to eight shipments of hot wrought steel round bars even though the exclusions were granted after the shipments entered the U.S., importer Saarsteel argued in a complaint last week at the Court of International Trade. The company said it is CBP's practice to allow an importer to claim a granted exclusion via a post-summary correction or a protest when the exclusion was granted after the entry was made but "relates back to a submission date covering the entry" (Saarsteel Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00271).
There is "absolutely no substantive justification" to give the Commerce Department another 91 days to review NLMK Pennsylvania's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests, the company argued in an April 20 brief opposing the extension bid at the Court of International Trade (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 23 sent back the Commerce Department's rejection of NLMK Pennsylvania's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests, with Judge Claire Kelly finding Commerce didn't support its determinations that the objectors to the exclusion requests could provide "suitable substitutes" and make enough of the steel slab subject to the exclusion requests.
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 23 order sent back the Commerce Department's decision to deny NLMK Pennsylvania's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests for certain steel slabs. Judge Claire Kelly found Commerce did not properly support its positions that the exclusion objectors offered a "suitable substitute" for the steel slab needed by NLMK and could provide NLMK with enough quantity.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Jan. 4 in a case denying a group of U.S. steel companies the right to intervene in a series of cases challenging denied exclusion requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The mandate comes after the court denied the steel companies' rehearing bid over the decision (see 2212280017). In the case, the Court of International Trade and later the Federal Circuit said that a proposed intervenor must have a legally protectable interest in the transaction at issue, have a direct relationship with the litigation where the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct judgment, or show its interests are not adequately expressed by the government. The courts ruled the steel companies failed on all three fronts.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 28 dismissed an appeal from Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline over Section 232 exclusion requests. The appellants asked for the case to be dismissed after CBP dropped the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the entries at issue (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a set of domestic steel companies' bid for a rehearing of the court's denial of its bid to intervene in a series of cases challenging denied exclusion requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs.
US Steel Tells CIT About 'Developments' in CAFC Case Over Intervention in Section 232 Exclusion Case
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).