The Court of International Trade on Jan. 22 largely dismissed importer Prysmian Cables and Systems USA's suit challenging the Commerce Department's denial of its Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. Judge Stephen Vaden said the company's claims that Commerce failed to act since it didn't perform three required actions for each denial fall short, since the agency didn't fail to act. A denial isn't an "action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed: It is a decision," the court said. The court also dismissed most of Prysmian's challenges to the denials as being arbitrary and capricious, finding them to have been brought beyond the applicable two-year statute of limitations for challenging Section 232 exclusion request denials.
In a complaint filed Jan. 15, steel wire exporter Tree Island said CBP erroneously assessed Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs on 11 of its entries (Tree Island Industries v. United States, CIT # 25-00019).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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 following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Dec. 16 supported its motion to dismiss the amended complaint of aluminum rod importer Prysmian Cables and Systems, saying that the importer’s arguments failed to state a claim, aren’t subject to the “continuing violation doctrine” and don’t have a six-year statute of limitations (Prysmian Cables and Systems v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) improperly rejected 63 Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests filed by California-based importer Mirror Metals, the company argued in a Dec. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Mirror Metals said that if BIS applied the standards laid out in its regulations, the "only reasonable conclusion" it could have drawn was that the company "cannot obtain the subject steel in the U.S. market in a sufficient quantity or quality, on a timely basis to replace the steel it currently imports" (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 24-00260).
Importer Seneca Foods Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's rejection of eight Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests, the company said in a notice of appeal (see 2410240029). In the decision, the trade court found that the rejections were backed by substantial evidence and in line with agency practice. The court also sustained Commerce's focus on "prospective evidence of steel production" and rejected Seneca's claim that Commerce's approach gives "short shrift to course-of-dealing evidence" that suggests that an objecting U.S. company won't actually deliver the goods (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 declined to grant victory to G&H Diversified Manufacturing on the importer's claims that CBP previously, as part of its role in granting a Section 232 duty exclusion, already said the company's imports were subject to the exclusion. Judge Timothy Reif said open questions of fact still exist with regard to the extent of CBP's role in the exclusion process.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 found a factual dispute regarding the extent of CBP's role in the Section 232 exclusion request process for importer G&H Diversified Manufacturing, denying the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. G&H secured a Section 232 exclusion for goods entered under subheading 7304.29.6115 but then saw CBP liquidate its goods under subheading 7304.59.8020. Judge Timothy Reif said G&H couldn't prevail on its claim that CBP failed to consider it previously determined, on at least three separate occasions, that the company's goods are classified under subheading 7304.29.6115 as part of its role in the exclusion process.