The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Country of origin cases
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade upheld for the second time the Commerce Department's decision that no benefit was conferred to South Korean steel companies through the provision of electricity. In a decision written on Jan. 21 but made public on Feb. 1, Judge Mark Barnett sustained Commerce's decision after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded it for unlawfully relying on price discrimination instead of a thorough fair-market principles evaluation. Barnett said Commerce has now addressed the Federal Circuit's concerns.
A lawsuit by Home Depot USA over the president's authority to expand Section 232 national security tariffs beyond procedural deadlines filed at the Court of International Trade was assigned to a three-judge panel, in a Feb. 2 order. The judges -- Timothy Stanceu, Jennifer Choe-Groves and M. Miller Baker -- ruled on the original April 2021 decision to strike down the expansion of the Section 232 tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivatives" (see 2104050049). (Home Depot USA v. United States, CIT #22-00014).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Feb. 1 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's request to re-review its decision to deny 15 exclusion requests from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, in a Feb. 1 order. Plaintiff NLMK Pennsylvania had consented to the request, even though Commerce's offer only covered 15 of the 54 total exclusion denial challenges made by NLMK. In its order, CIT did shorten the amount of time Commerce has to review the 15 cases from 150 days, as requested by the agency, to 106 days.
The Court of International Trade heard oral argument on Feb. 1 over whether lists 3 and 4A of Section 301 tariffs were properly imposed, marking one of the largest cases in the CIT's history. The hourslong affair saw the judges push back on arguments made by both the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs, with significant attention paid to the procedural elements of the president's decision to impose the retaliatory Section 301 tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. In all, the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves heard from the Department of Justice, counsel for the test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, and amici.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed the American Steel Nail Coalition to appear as amicus curiae in a dispute over whether the president properly expanded the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto "derivative" products made beyond procedural deadlines. In the brief, the coalition urged the Federal Circuit to uphold this extension since it had a positive impact on the U.S. industry and the issue was already decided in the key case Transpacific Steel v. U.S. (see 2201100059). In Transpacific, the Federal Circuit greenlighted presidential action taken beyond procedural time limits so long as it is part of the original plan of action laid out in the Commerce Secretary's report preceding the Section 232 tariffs (see 2107130059) (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2066).
The Court of International Trade sent an antidumping case back to the Commerce Department with instructions to perform verification of the respondent's information or respond to the arguments made by the plaintiffs, led by the Bonney Forge Corporation. Commerce originally opted not to conduct verification in India due to COVID-19, issuing an additional questionnaire instead. The plaintiffs asked the agency to conduct a virtual verification, to which Commerce didn't reply. Judge Stephen Vaden ordered Commerce to either conduct verification, as Commerce must reply to all arguments made in good faith, or explain why it can't. Vaden also said that if Commerce finds that verification remains impossible, it should explain why senior DOJ and Cabinet officials can travel to India, but it is not safe for bureaucrats with "statutory responsibilities to do the same, even if only virtually."