Following a key decision from the Court of International Trade striking down Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum "derivatives" (see 2104050049), steel nail importer Hilti filed a lawsuit of its own in the court seeking to reap the benefits. In a May 5 complaint, Hilti made several arguments similar to those in PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, et al. Among other things, Hilti said the already struck-down Section 232 tariff expansion to include steel derivatives was improper because there was no underlying report from the Commerce Department (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).
Nearly 600 pages comprise two administrative record indexes, one “non-confidential,” the other “confidential,” filed April 30 with the Court of International Trade by government defendants in the massive Section 301 litigation challenging the lawfulness of the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports. The roughly 3,600+ complaints seek to get the tariffs vacated and the duties refunded, alleging they run afoul of the 1974 Trade Act and violate 1946 Administrative Procedure Act protections against sloppy rulemakings.
Judge Gary Katzmann denied a motion from solar panel industry groups to expedite discovery of what they believe to be a key petition in a case over the redaction of a tariff exemption for bifacial solar panels in an April 21 order. The plaintiffs asked to get the government defense to produce a “petition from a majority of the representatives of the domestic industry” upon which President Donald Trump supposedly based his decision to withdraw the tariff exemption. In denying the motion, Katzmann also stipulated that the plaintiffs have until May 5 to file their response to the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the case.