The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 14-20.
The United Kingdom and the U.S. announced an agreement in the Airbus-Boeing dispute in line with the previously announced agreement between the U.S. and the European Union (see 2106150021). In the agreement, both sides will keep 25% tariffs off a variety of products and 10% tariffs off aircraft for at least five years, and will use a working group to hash out any disagreements on whether either government's support for their large aircraft maker is distorting sales. They also will work together to counter Chinese or other countries' distortions, the June 17 statement said.
The Coalition of American Metal Manufacturers and Users said the U.S. negotiators aiming to end Section 232 tariffs by addressing steel overcapacity should listen to U.S. industrial users of the metals.
The U.S.-European Union joint statement on trade says: "We will engage in discussions to allow the resolution of existing differences on measures regarding steel and aluminum before the end of the year. In this regard, we are determined to work together to resolve tensions arising from the U.S. application of tariffs on imports from the EU under U.S. Section 232." It also says, "We commit to ensure the long-term viability of our steel and aluminum industries, and to address excess capacity."
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from June 7-11 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Regulatory agencies with import authorities listed several new rules in their first regulatory agenda since the arrival in office of President Joe Biden. New rulemakings listed by the agencies include new restrictions on chemicals, a slate of regulatory amendments related to Section 232 investigations, and a new proposal on administrative destruction of medical devices refused entry.
The Biden administration emphasized how reaching an agreement to end a 17-year-dispute over government subsidies to both Airbus and Boeing does more than just lift tariffs for at least five years. They see the most significant plank of the agreement as the one in which European Union countries agree to prevent foreign investments in the aerospace sector that are done to acquire technology or know-how, and to counter investments by European aerospace companies in China or other countries that are done in response to incentives or because the investments are a condition to sell in that market.
Senate Finance Committee ranking member Mike Crapo and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., announced June 14 that they sent a letter to the commerce secretary reminding her that by law, reports on the conclusions of Section 232 investigations are to be made public. The letter directs Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo to send copies of reports on autos and auto parts, uranium, electric transformers and cores, vanadium, and titatanium sponges to the Senate by June 25 and to publish reports, minus business confidential information, as soon as possible.
European and U.S. former government officials said they think the U.S. and European countries will find much common ground in efforts to make trade work for working people, but that getting on the same page with China will be a challenge.
The Court of International Trade found again that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding Section 232 tariffs to steel and aluminum “derivatives,” in a June 10 decision. Citing CIT's prior case on the topic, PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. United States (see 2104050049), Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves and Timothy Stanceu awarded refunds for tariffs paid to steel fastener importers Oman Fasteners, Huttig Building Products and Huttig Inc. In Oman Fasteners, LLC. et al. v. United States, the court ruled that the president illegally announced the tariff expansion after the 105-day deadline laid out by Section 232, but denied the plaintiff's other two claims, without prejudice, on the procedural violations of the tariff expansion. The panel's third member, Judge Miller Baker, concurred in part and dissented in part.