Steel Importers Ask CIT to Stop Enforcement of Section 232 Tariffs; AIIS Seeks Legal Fund Donations
The American Institute for International Steel and two companies asked the Court of International Trade on July 19 to immediately stop the enforcement of Section 232 tariffs, AIIS said in a news release. A summary judgment is necessary to prevent further monetary harm to steel importers, as well as "the port authorities, customs brokers, insurance companies, and logistics companies that are members of AIIS and that derive significant portions of their revenue from their handling of imported steel," AIIS said in its filing.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The request is part of a constitutional challenge to the president's Section 232 authority filed last month (see 1806270036). “In Section 232, the U.S. Congress has transferred to the President the ability to make the essential policy choices that the Constitution assigns to Congress alone,” George Washington University Law School professor Alan Morrison, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said in the news release. “Congress is required to retain those policy choices under our Constitution, a notion supported by the principles of separation of powers that animate it. At the end of the day, Congress alone should exert this authority, in keeping with how our system was designed.”
AIIS is also seeking donations to help pay for the lawsuit, it said in a letter signed by AIIS Chairman John Foster. "Because of the way our case is designed, we estimate that our costs will be approximately $250,000, which is a quarter of what most similar trade actions in Washington DC cost due to the generous commitment of our legal team," the group said. "This is still a significant sum for us, however, and we need your help now, particularly if you or your customers/suppliers are being negatively impacted by the effects of this unnecessary protectionist action."