The EU extended its steel safeguard measure until June 30, 2026, the European Commission's Directorate-General for Trade announced. The measure imposes tariff rate quotas "above which a 25% duty is levied on imports." The TRQs were imposed in response to the U.S. Section 232 measures.
An importer of tubing for perforating guns said June 21 that its refund request was wrongly denied after CBP initially accepted its 2020 request for exclusion from Section 232 tariffs. The denial occurred because CBP claimed that the products’ Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification was wrong, even though the agency had said otherwise on three separate occasions, including at liquidation, it said (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).
Defending the Commerce Department’s continued denial on remand of a canned foods importer’s Section 232 requests (see 2404020047), the U.S. said that the importer can submit new requests if domestic producers really can’t meet that importer’s needs (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).
A steel importer whose Section 232 exclusion denials case has been winding through the Court of International Trade since 2021 said again June 10, in support of its remand comments (see 2404090067), that a competitor and domestic supplier provably hasn’t been able to provide enough steel for the importer’s needs since 2018 (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).
Another importer alleged June 7 that the Commerce Department improperly relied on competitors’ unsupported claim that they, as domestic producers, could provide enough of an input -- aluminum rod, this time -- to cover the importer’s needs. As a result, the importer had been forced to pay “tens of millions” of dollars in Section 232 tariffs, it said (Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 28-29 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
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 Chevron doctrine will almost certainly be overturned soon by the Supreme Court, leaving the path forward for judicial deference unclear, panelists said at Georgetown University Law Center’s 45th Annual International Trade Update.
U.S. Steel Corp. moved for leave to join importer California Steel Industries' case challenging rejections of its requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions as amicus curiae, after its efforts to intervene in the suit were thwarted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).