The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 16 issued its mandate in a customs suit on the classification of importer Shamrock Building Materials' steel tubing with insulating material (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1648).
Trade Court Rejects US Steel's Requests to Redact Parts of Decision on Section 232 Exclusion Denials
The Court of International Trade rejected U.S. Steel Corp.'s bid to redact portions of the court's recent decision remanding 31 Section 232 exclusion requests. Judge M. Miller Baker said a showing of good cause alone isn't enough to shield discovery materials after they have been introduced at trial or submitted "in connection with dispositive motions," noting the need for transparency in the judicial system and presumption of public access to court proceedings.
The Commerce Department failed to consider whether U.S. Steel Corp. had the capacity to fill the aggregate of importer California Steel Industries' Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests as opposed to just assessing whether U.S. Steel could fill all of them individually, the Court of International Trade held on Nov. 13. Judge M. Miller Baker added that Commerce didn't address its concession that it couldn't timely supply more slab than contracted for with California Steel.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Dec. 13 remanded the Commerce Department's rejection of 31 of importer California Steel Industries' Section 232 exclusion requests. Judge M. Miller Baker found that Commerce failed to consider whether objector U.S. Steel Corp. could supply the entire amount of slab represented across all 31 exclusions as opposed to just the slab covered by one exclusion request. However, Baker sustained Commerce's rejection of another 14 exclusion requests from California Steel, finding that the agency reasonably found U.S. Steel could timely provide slab to the importer in a sufficient quantity.
Importer AM/NS Calvert and the U.S. settled the company's case challenging the rejection of its 12 requests for Section 232 steel tariff exclusions, the parties told the Court of International Trade on Dec. 4. Under the settlement, CBP will refund duties paid on 20 entries of the company's steel slab imports, and the company will abandon its claim for refunds on another 16 of its slab entries. The settlement came as the result of court-led mediation before Judge Leo Gordon. The parties said they reached an agreement in principle to settle the case in February, pending a review of Calvert's import data (see 2404120043) (AM/NS Calvert v. U.S., CIT # 21-00005).
The U.S. conflated importer Prysmian Cables and Systems' claims that the Commerce Department improperly denied its requests for Section 232 steel tariff exclusions with its claim that Commerce failed to "perform certain mandatory and discrete actions in responding" to the requests, Prysmian argued in its response to the government's motion to partially dismiss the case (Prysmian Cables and Systems v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 2 referred importer California Steel Industries' suit on its denied requests for Section 232 steel tariff exclusions to court-annexed mediation before Judge Leo Gordon. The action was previously referred to mediation, though the effort proved fruitless (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. and an importer reached a settlement in a 2021 classification dispute regarding Chinese-origin light-emitting diode (LED) lamps. Under the deal, the importer’s lights won't be subject to Section 232 tariffs, with a 25% additional duty, but will be subject to Section 301 tariffs (Super Bright LEDs v. U.S., CIT # 21-00099).