Government Too Slow in Refunding Section 232 Duties on Turkish Steel, Transpacific Says
The U.S. government is moving too slowly in the processing of refunds of duties paid on imported steel from Turkey that were subject to additional Section 232 tariffs, Transpacific Steel said in a Nov. 4 filing with the Court of International Trade. Transpacific was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit over the tariffs. A three-judge CIT panel ruled that the tariffs were improperly imposed because they were put in place after the statutory timelines for Section 232 tariffs (see 2007140046). A government appeal filed in September with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is awaiting a ruling.
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.
Transpacific previously requested that the refunds be processed while the appeal is pending, but the CIT denied that request, as well as one from the Department of Justice “for a stay of enforcement of judgment pending appeal.” In response to a refund status update from Transpacific, DOJ said it viewed the CIT denial of Transpacific's request as “authorizing the government to delay compliance with the Court’s judgment until such time as the Federal Circuit rules on its motion for stay.”
The CIT said in its denial of the Transpacific motion that there wasn't a “reason to doubt that Defendants will promptly comply with the court’s judgment should they fail to obtain a stay of enforcement from the Court of Appeals,” Transpacific said. “In the intervening two months, Defendants have not secured a stay from the Federal Circuit and thus are obligated to comply with the judgment of this Court.” Although the CIT “acknowledged in its previous decision that it had not provided a deadline for compliance with its judgment, the Court also held that Defendants did not qualify for a stay of the judgment in this action,” Transpacific said. “Accordingly, in the absence of a stay of enforcement of the judgment from the Federal Circuit, Plaintiffs respectfully renew their motion for a status report within 10 days in order to seek compliance with this Court’s judgment.”
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the filing.