Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation officially filed on May 12 their notice of appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision upholding President Donald Trump's tariff action on China. The case was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CIT had agreed that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with Administrative Procedure Act requirements when it set lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs (see 2303170063) (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
Importer Farrier Product Distribution settled its case originally challenging Section 232 steel and aluminum duties on "derivative" products, securing refunds of the duties, the company told the Court of International Trade in a motion to voluntarily dismiss its case. Farrier said the parties sought to "resolve the legal controversy that gave rise to this matter," adding that the U.S. and the importer have been "successful in that effort" (Farrier Product Distribution v. United States, CIT # 20-00098).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate May 8 in a case in which it found that the Commerce Department can legally deduct Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in antidumping duty proceedings, which raises the respondent's dumping margins (see 2303150035). In its March opinion, the appellate court said the presidential proclamation imposing the duties made clear that the tariffs were meant to be added to any applicable antidumping duties, though the court clarified that this ruling applies only to President Donald Trump's Section 232 duties and not all presidential action taken under this statute (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2097).
Steel importers led by PrimeSource Building Products petitioned for an en banc rehearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision to uphold President Donald Trump's expansion of the Section 232 national security tariffs on steel and aluminum "derivative" products. The companies said that if the decision stands, the president "will enjoy unbounded legislative power to regulate foreign trade -- to take any action, at any time, targeting any imported product," as long as the commerce secretary makes a threat determination on the targeted product or any material used to make that product (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2066).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's steel and aluminum tariff action under Section 232.
Importers in the massive litigation over President Donald Trump's Section 301 action on China will appeal Court of International Trade rulings upholding the tariffs. Pratik Shah, counsel for lead plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, said he believes the importers' arguments are strong.
The Commerce Department can legally deduct President Donald Trump's Section 232 duties from an exporter's U.S. price in antidumping duty proceedings, raising the respondent's dumping margin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said Trump's proclamation imposing the duties made clear that the Section 232 tariffs were meant to be added to any applicable antidumping duties. However, the appellate court clarified that this ruling only applies to Trump's Section 232 duties and not all presidential action taken under Section 232.
The Commerce Department can legally deduct Section 232 duties from an exporter's U.S. price in antidumping proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham held that President Donald Trump's Proclamation 9705 imposing the duties made clear the tariffs were meant to be added to any applicable antidumping duties. The appellate court also clarified that this ruling applies only to Proclamation 9705 duties and not all presidential action taken under Section 232.
The report from the commerce secretary concluding a Section 232 investigation is not "purely advisory" and actually gives the president a new power to regulate trade, so it "must be subject to judicial review" under the Administrative Procedure Act, petitioners led by USP Holdings argued at the U.S. Supreme Court in a March 2 brief (USP Holdings v. United States, U.S.C. # 22-565).
The commerce secretary's report allowing President Donald Trump to take tariff action on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act nor can it be reviewed for arbitrariness, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 20 reply brief at the U.S. Supreme Court. Even if it was up for review, the secretary did not misconstrue the statute since it does not require the report to make a finding on the imminent nature of any threat to national security, the government said (USP Holdings, et al. v. United States, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 22-565).