Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department wants a voluntary remand to reconsider a bevy of blanket Section 232 exclusion denials it issued to Voestalpine High Performance Metals Corp. and Edro Specialty Steels, the agency told the Court of International Trade in a Sept. 30 filing (Voestalpine High Performance Metals Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00093). Judge Miller Baker then stayed the time for plaintiffs to respond to this remand motion “until further order of the court,” in an order. The judge then instructed all parties to let the court know their position on court-annexed mediation to settle the issue of remand.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 26 dismissed a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, saying the plaintiffs had already received the relief available to them from the Commerce Department in the form of a product exclusion but failed to preserve their ability to receive a refund by way of an extension of liquidation or a protest.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied, in part, and declared moot, in part, a Michigan-based car importer's challenge to two titling requirements imposed by the state of Ohio, in an Aug. 3 opinion. Judge Edmund Sargus found the challenge to a bond release letter requirement to be moot given the requirement was already lifted and that the claim against in-state inspection requirements fails since the regulation does not discriminate against out-of-state interests.
Two steel importers, voestalpine USA and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, want refunds for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid on imports of alloy steel since the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security published a Section 232 exclusion with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule code, they said in a June 18 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Voestalpine and Bilstein say the HTS error was only remedied after the imports had been liquidated and that no protest option was available to apply the exclusions after liquidation (voestalpine USA LLC et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00290).
The Commerce Department is working with a police agency in rural Texas to help investigate illegally exported goods, an unorthodox relationship that has sparked concern among industry lawyers and led to disputed seizures.
Export controls over 3D-printed guns were moved from the Commerce Department to the State Department following a court’s decision this week to officially waive a preliminary injunction that had blocked the transfer (see 2105030021).
A U.S. public relations firm was granted a Lobbying Disclosure Act exemption to the Foreign Agents Registration Act for its work on behalf of the U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation relating to the Section 232 national security tariffs, the Department of Justice revealed in a FARA Advisory Opinion. Since the firm is not representing the interests of a foreign government, it was able to skirt the required FARA registration in its work seeking Section 232 tariff relief for the company. While a foreign government may indirectly benefit from the described activities, the activities clearly benefit [U.S. subsidiary of foreign corporation]’s commercial interests," the opinion said. "Accordingly, we do not dispute your claim that the LDA exemption applies." The firm and the subsidiary, along with the foreign corporation, are not named.
The Department of Justice's argument claiming that the Voestalpine USA Corp. and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel case in the Court of International Trade is beyond the statute of limitations was made improperly and should be disregarded, the importers said in a May 17 surreply to DOJ's motion to dismiss. DOJ made its statute of limitations argument for the first time in its reply brief and not in the motion to dismiss, and in any case a question over the statute of limitations of its argument is not relevant to the court's subject matter jurisdiction counsel for Voestalpine and Bilstein argued (Voestalpine USA Corp. et al v. United States, CIT # 20-03829).
A U.S. district court judge dismissed a case involving the seizure of a multimillion-dollar jet after Texas officials failed to prove the jet violated export regulations or was involved in a money-laundering scheme. Texas police seized the British Aerospace BAE 125 Series jet last year on tax evasion and money-laundering charges and suggested the owners violated the Export Administration Regulations, but a judge said police had no evidence or probable cause.