CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
CBP updated its guidance on the Section 232 tariffs and Chapter 98 revisions in an April 14 CSMS message. The agency issued guidance in 2018 (see 1807060027) that said “Section 232 duties are assessed in the same manner as regular customs duties,” and that “goods eligible for Chapter 98 provisions that provide duty-free treatment are free of Section 232 duties.” That language was removed and replaced with language to say that while for valid claims “Chapter 98 treatment will be applied,” additionally, “Section 232 duties, under Chapter 99, will be assessed independently from any Chapter 98 treatment and in accordance with the applicable chapter 99 note.” CBP didn't immediately comment when asked for more information about the change.
CBP has assessed about $60.8 billion in duties under the major trade remedies started during the Trump administration as of April 8, according to CBP's trade statistics page. That includes $49.6 billion in duties from the Section 301 tariffs on goods from China, and $500 million in Section 301 tariffs on goods from the European Union. CBP also has assessed about $6.9 billion under the Section 232 tariffs on steel and $2.1 billion under tariffs on aluminum. The Section 201 trade remedies on washing machines, washing machine parts and solar cells account for $1.7 billion in assessed tariffs. CBP's statistics account for refunds provided to importers.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 30 - April 5:
The Commerce Department issued Federal Register notices on its recently initiated antidumping duty investigations on common alloy aluminum sheet from Bahrain (A-525-001), Brazil (A-351-854), Croatia (A-891-001), Egypt (A-729-803), Germany (A-428-849), Greece (A-484-804), India (A-533-895), Indonesia (A-560-835), Italy (A-475-842), South Korea (A-580-906), Oman (A-523-814), Romania (A-485-809), Serbia (A-801-001), Slovenia (A-856-001), South Africa (A-791-825), Spain (A-469-820), Taiwan (A-583-867) and Turkey (A-489-839), and its recently initiated countervailing duty investigation on Brazil (C-351-855), Turkey (C-489-840), Bahrain (C-525-002) and India (C-533-896).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 23-29:
An importer has filed suit at the Court of International Trade, challenging the now-lifted Section 232 tariffs on aluminum products from Canada and Mexico. Koch Supply & Trading says that President Donald Trump violated the timelines in Section 232 when he imposed the tariffs at the beginning of June 2018 (see 1805310028). Koch also says CBP improperly denied its protest, and that the tariffs are unconstitutional.
The House of Representatives, on a voice vote March 27, passed a bill that will give businesses access to forgivable loans and grants to keep operations going as the economy grinds to a halt due to the novel coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. President Donald Trump signed it later that afternoon. It includes a provision that could help importers that have been unprofitable after the imposition of Section 301 or Section 232 tariffs (see 2003250025). Companies can use the losses they incurred in 2018, 2019 or 2020 to get income tax refunds from the previous five years. They could apply now for those 2018 and 2019 losses. The bill also sets in motion a study of the U.S. medical product supply chain.
A recent report from the Congressional Research Service noted that even as some countries place export restrictions on supplies needed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, the president could remove tariffs on medical supplies under Section 318 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The CRS noted the legality of this section has never been tested, but given that so far, federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of Section 232, it could be that the president could have such broad power to remove tariffs, as well.
The American Institute for International Steel has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in its challenge to the constitutionality of Section 232 tariffs. The petition for certiorari asks, “Is section 232 facially unconstitutional on the ground that it lacks any boundaries that confine the President’s discretion to impose tariffs on imported goods and, therefore, constitutes an improper delegation of legislative authority and a violation of the principle of separation of powers established by the Constitution?” If the case succeeds, “it would preclude the President from relying on section 232 at all,” the brief says. The Court of International Trade and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit both ruled that Supreme Court precedent from the 1970s requires a finding that the tariffs are constitutional (see 2002280058). AIIS hopes to get a decision on whether the Supreme Court will hear the case by the court’s summer recess, said its lawyer, Alan Morrison of George Washington University Law School.