The American Institute for International Steel and two companies filed a lawsuit June 27 at the U.S. Court of International Trade over the constitutionality of Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. The suit claims that Section 232 is unconstitutional because it delegates such broad authority to the president and there is no judicial review to those broad powers. "The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the law relied on by President Trump to impose that tariff is unconstitutional, as well as a court order preventing further enforcement of the 25% tariff increase," AIIS said in a news release. The trade group also asked that a three-judge panel hear its case, because that would allow an appeal to go straight to the Supreme Court.
New tariffs on goods from the U.S. exported to Turkey in response to Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum took effect on June 21, KPMG said on its website. An official June 25 notice from Turkey described the implementation of the new tariffs, a report from a KPMG firm in Turkey said. The new tariffs apply to the same subheadings listed in a World Trade Organization submission, though some of the tariff amounts differ, according to KPMG. "Retaliatory customs duty will be applicable on imports of US originated automobiles, whiskey, tobacco, coal, cosmetics, machinery equipment, paper and petrochemical products, etc.," the Turkish firm said. "Turkey will impose additional fiscal burden against various US origin goods between 4 percent to 70 percent. At the same time, [whiskey] and automobile importations will be subject to additional fiscal burden at the rate of 70% and 60% with an applicable highest rate."
The American Institute for International Steel will announce on June 27 "the launch of a legal challenge that seeks to remedy a situation that is bad for the American economy and American workers alike," the group said in a June 26 news release. AIIS said "President Trump’s Section 232 tariffs on imported steel and aluminum have already created significant collateral damage for U.S. industries." The group called the coming legal action a "critically important, first-of-its-kind initiative."
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for June 18-22 in case they were missed.
Lawmakers should vote for legislation to limit the president's ability to impose Section 232 tariffs, more than 60 national business groups and more than 200 local chambers of commerce and similar organizations pleaded with the Senate in a letter sent June 26. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., led a charge to give Congress a way to roll back the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum and to block similar tariffs on imported cars, trucks and auto parts, but it stalled because Senate leaders said such a measure has to originate in the House of Representatives, as it affects revenue.
The Coalition of American Metal Manufacturers and Users updated its "comprehensive list of retaliatory tariffs" that now applies as of June 18. The list covers retaliatory tariffs, either currently in effect or proposed, from Canada, China, the European Union, India and Mexico. "Other countries including Japan, Russia and Turkey have warned of potential retaliation but have not announced formal tariffs," the group said. Turkey released a list of potential tariffs in May. Russia is reportedly close to issuing a list of retaliatory tariffs. The tariffs are in response to Section 232 tariffs on U.S. imports of steel and aluminum.
Two Republican senators who are retiring this year believe some of their colleagues will take a stand against the protectionist approach of the Trump administration. "Republicans need to stand up to tariffs," Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said during a June 24 interview. "We're in the nascent stages of a full-scale trade war, and the president simply seems to want to escalate." He said until a bill (see 1806220014) that would require a vote on Section 232 tariffs moves, "I think myself and a number of senators, at least a few of us, will say, 'Let's not move any more judges.'"
The one-year clock for product exclusions to the Section 232 tariffs starts the day the decision memo was signed, not the date a request was posted for comment, a Commerce Department spokesperson said June 25. So, for example, a request that was posted for comments on April 20 that the Bureau of Industry and Security approved on June 19 will apply until June 19, 2019. That one year starts on the date the deputy assistant secretary of export administration signed the memo, which was June 19, not on the original date of posting the request and not on the date the decision became public.
The Senate Appropriations Bill for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019 would spend $14.26 billion on CBP, almost $239 million more than the current spending. The committee report said that it's sending $49 million for 375 additional CBP officers, "in recognition of wait times at certain ports of entry as well as the volume of illicit drugs passing through POEs." With regard to drugs smuggled through ports of entry, the report says the Senate intends to provide $30 million in support of enforcement at international mail facilities and express consignment carrier locations "by enhancing scientific and laboratory staffing, increasing law enforcement staffing and canines, improving facilities, deploying technology to locate targeted packages, enhancing detection and testing equipment, and improving interoperability with FDA detection equipment." The bill provides $174 million for non-intrusive inspection equipment, of which the $30 million for opioids is a subset.
An attempt to rein in the president on Section 232 tariffs has been reintroduced as a free-standing bill. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., introduced a bill June 21 that would end the steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union, Canada and Mexico. It would also require that the administration consult with Congress before imposing any tariffs on the grounds of national security. Another bill introduced earlier this month by Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., sought to require a vote from Congress before Section 232 tariff action could be taken. Corker's bill has stalled because revenue bills must start in the House of Representatives (see 1806130012).