The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shouldn't strike down President Donald Trump's extension of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto "derivative" products made beyond procedural deadlines since the tariffs had a positive impact on the U.S. industry, The American Steel Nail Coalition said in Jan. 10 proposed amicus brief. The coalition asked the court for leave to file the amicus brief in a bid to broaden the defense of the president's tariff action. The proposed amicus further said that this issue has already been decided following the Federal Circuit's decision in the key case Transpacific Steel v. U.S. (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2066).
Section 232 allows the president to expand tariff action beyond procedural time limits laid out in the law, as he did when he expanded the tariffs to cover steel and aluminum derivatives over a year after the tariffs were initially imposed, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Jan. 3 brief. Relying heavily on a recent CAFC opinion on an increase of tariffs on Turkish steel, DOJ said the president is allowed to expand Section 232 tariffs to products beyond the ones laid out in the original commerce secretary report as long as it's part of the original "plan of action" (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2066).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2021 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
Five Republican Senators filed an amicus brief on Dec. 15 with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to take up a case over the limits of the president's authority under the Section 232 national security tariff statute. The brief, signed by Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Bill Cassidy, R-La.; Mike Lee, R-Utah; and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., argues against a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion spurning time limits imposed in the statute. The time limits are crucial to ensuring that "Congress makes the major policy decisions regarding the regulation of foreign commerce," the lawmakers said.
The refunds issued to parties that challenged President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff hike on Turkish steel are either back in the government's hands or on their way, the litigants told the Court of International Trade in a joint status report (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00009).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 7 suspended liquidation of all unliquidated entries involved in a case challenging a decision by President Donald Trump to revoke a tariff exclusion granted to bifacial solar panels. The liquidation suspension comes after the trade court struck down the tariff exclusion withdrawal, finding it to be a clear misconstruction of the law since the relevant law only permits trade liberalizing alterations to existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032). After the ruling, the plaintiffs, led by the Solar Energy Industry Association, filed an unopposed motion for an order suspending liquidation, urging the court to halt liquidation until all appeals are final. Without such action from the court, it is possible that many of the subject entries will have liquidated and become final, the motion said (Solar Energy Industries Association, et al. v. United States, et al., CIT #20-03941).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. may hear an appeal of the key Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States decision, seeing it as an opportunity to discuss the question of the extent to which Congress delegated tariff powers to the president, Julie Mendoza of Morris Manning, counsel to plaintiff-appellee Borusan Mannesmann, told Trade Law Daily. Having recently petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case, Mendoza said that having the case sit in front of the nation's highest court will also give her and her team a chance to argue that the most recent decision in the case runs afoul of the intelligible principle standard for delegation of powers to the president as it relates to Section 232.
President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion granted to bifacial solar panels is a "clear misconstruction" of the law since the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures, the Court of International Trade said Nov. 16, reversing the revocation of the exclusion.
Transpacific Plaintiffs to Petition SCOTUS Over Decision Permitting Post-Deadline Section 232 Action
A key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that found that the president can impose greater Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day deadline for action laid out in the statute is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Transpacific Steel, Borusan Mannesmann and The Jordan International Company filed a petition Nov. 12 in an attempt to get the high court to side with the original Court of International Trade decision, which held that the president may not make such adjustments.
Importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc.'s telecommunications cables qualify for Section 301 China tariff exclusions and the duties it paid on the cables should be refunded, the importer argued in an Oct. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging CBP's denial of its protest, which sought to apply a particular exclusion (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00200).