The Supreme Court gave appellants, in a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, an extension to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. In the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that there is no requirement in the statute to find an imminent threat to the domestic industry before imposing Section 232 duties and that the threat determination is not reviewable under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard since the secretary's action "is only reviewable for compliance with the statute" (see 2206090047). The appellate court then denied a petition to rehear the challenge (see 2208190049). The appellants, led by USP Holdings, have through Dec. 16 to file the petition (USP Holdings v. United States, #21-1726).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 21 opinion let exporter Oman Fasteners stop paying cash deposits over its potential Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff liability in a case on the validity of the national security duties on "derivative" products. A previous court order let Oman Fasteners stop making duty deposits after reaching an agreement with the U.S. on the resumption of bonding. The U.S. said the company wasn't entitled to bonding since it had failed to abide by the arrangement. A three-judge panel ruled that the U.S. shall exclude Oman Fasteners from the need to post cash deposits for potential Section 232 liability until the U.S. can get another order from the court or Oman Fasteners voluntarily enters into an agreement that modifies the terms of the court's opinion.
An argument from apellees, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, in a Federal Circuit case that the safeguard statute implicitly limits the president to make "trade-liberalizing" measures relies on a "strained reading of the statutory contest," by placing undue emphasis on the fact that section 2254(b)(1)(B) lets the president find that the domestic industry "has made" a positive adjustment to import competition, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 17 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This position "relies on an illusory distinction between complete and ongoing adjustment," the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP illegally collected duties on bifacial solar panels after the Court of International Trade struck down the Trump administration's revocation of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, importer Canadian Solar (USA) argued in a complaint at CIT. Given that the trade court found the tariff revocation illegal, CBP no longer can require the importers to pay the safeguard tariff on bifacial solar panels, the brief said. The duties "are substantial and impose a continuing financial burden," Canadian Solar argued (Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00295).
The Court of International Trade should stay proceedings in a case challenging President Donald Trump's reversal of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels pending resolution of a similar matter, plaintiffs JinkoSolar (U.S.) Inc. and Jinko Solar (U.S.) Industries argued in an unopposed stay motion (JinkoSolar (U.S.) Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00241). The case should be halted until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit settles Solar Energy Industries Association, et al. v. United States, the brief said. In that case, the trade court found that the statute did not allow further trade-restricting measures once a tariff exclusion had been put in place (see 2111160032).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should allow the U.S. to double its word count in its reply brief in a case on President Donald Trump's move to revoke a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 15 brief at the appellate court. The government argued that good cause exists for their motion since it must reply to the issue of presidential authority raised by the appellees along with several alternative problems, and because the importance of the issues in question warrant an enlargement of the word count (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).