The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 28 ruled that Section 232 tariffs are constitutional, finding itself bound by Supreme Court precedent set in the 1970s. Just as the Court of International Trade ruled in March 2019 in a lawsuit filed by the American Institute of International Steel, the Federal Circuit said it could not overturn the Supreme Court’s 1976 ruling, which found Section 232 to be a constitutional delegation of authority. The CAFC affirmed the CIT's decision “without deciding what ruling on the constitutional challenge would be proper in the absence of” the Supreme Court precedent.
A Canadian government analysis of NAFTA's replacement -- known as the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement in that country -- estimates that it will increase Canadian GDP by just under 0.25% over five years. The estimate is based on comparing CUSMA to a withdrawal from NAFTA, not from the present trade deal.
The European Union's Committee on International Trade Chairman Bernd Lange, in a roundtable with trade reporters Feb. 27, said that he asked officials from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative if there's any truth to rumors that the U.S. will either pull out of the government procurement agreement at the World Trade Organization, or that it will seek to raise its bound tariffs, a process that would begin at the WTO. “I got confirmation from all stakeholders this will not happen,” said Lange, who was in Washington to talk with officials from USTR, Congress, unions and think tanks. But, he added, “sometimes decisions in the United States are taken quite quick,” so he can't be sure that answer will be true next week.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative would need to provide specific guidance to CBP in order to change treatment of goods from foreign-trade zones that were subject to the recently decreased Section 301 tariffs, CBP said in response to a recent letter from the National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones (see 2002180046). CBP said it enforces the Section 301 duties issued by the USTR “based on CBP laws and regulations, including 19 CFR 146.65(a)(1), unless USTR directs CBP to take different actions pursuant to Section 301.” NAFTZ President Erik Autor said the association is reviewing its next steps.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 17-23:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Feb. 18-21 in case they were missed.
Correction: The Justice Department did not admit that PrimeSource is likely to succeed on the merits in its challenge to Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum “derivatives,” as part of its agreement on a preliminary injunction temporarily stopping collection of the duties on entries from PrimeSource (see 2002200025).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 21 issued an order blocking Section 232 “derivatives” tariffs on a second importer. The preliminary injunction stops CBP from collecting the tariffs on Oman Fasteners, and also sets bond requirements similar to those found in another preliminary injunction CIT recently issued for another importer, PrimeSource (see 2002140040). CIT Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu, who is also judge in the PrimeSource case, issued the order.
A third importer has now requested a court order blocking collection of new Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum “derivatives," and two others are not far behind. Huttig Building Products filed a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 18 challenging the new tariffs, and a day later asked for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would bar imposition of the tariffs on entries from Huttig and its affiliate while the court considers the legal challenge. Astrotech Steels and Trinity Steel filed their own complaints on Feb. 20, though as of press time they had not yet asked the court to order a halt to the tariffs.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 10-16: