President Donald Trump's recent expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs likely would survive a judicial challenge, particularly in light of the string of cases challenging the Section 232 duties imposed during his first term, trade lawyers told us. Thomas Beline, partner at Cassidy Levy, said Trump's move to eliminate the country-specific arrangements and product exclusions is "likely defensible," since the statute lets the president take any action he deems necessary where an agreement is "not being carried out or is ineffective."
The following lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department doesn't fail to act when it denies a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion request, the Court of International Trade held. Instead, the denial is a "decision" and "not an action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed," Judge Stephen Vaden said, dismissing a host of claims from importer Prysmian Cables and Systems USA against Commerce's rejection of its exclusion requests.
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 22 largely dismissed importer Prysmian Cables and Systems USA's suit challenging the Commerce Department's denial of its Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. Judge Stephen Vaden said the company's claims that Commerce failed to act since it didn't perform three required actions for each denial fall short, since the agency didn't fail to act. A denial isn't an "action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed: It is a decision," the court said. The court also dismissed most of Prysmian's challenges to the denials as being arbitrary and capricious, finding them to have been brought beyond the applicable two-year statute of limitations for challenging Section 232 exclusion request denials.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 declined to grant victory to G&H Diversified Manufacturing on the importer's claims that CBP previously, as part of its role in granting a Section 232 duty exclusion, already said the company's imports were subject to the exclusion. Judge Timothy Reif said open questions of fact still exist with regard to the extent of CBP's role in the exclusion process.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 found a factual dispute regarding the extent of CBP's role in the Section 232 exclusion request process for importer G&H Diversified Manufacturing, denying the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. G&H secured a Section 232 exclusion for goods entered under subheading 7304.29.6115 but then saw CBP liquidate its goods under subheading 7304.59.8020. Judge Timothy Reif said G&H couldn't prevail on its claim that CBP failed to consider it previously determined, on at least three separate occasions, that the company's goods are classified under subheading 7304.29.6115 as part of its role in the exclusion process.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 16 issued its mandate in a customs suit on the classification of importer Shamrock Building Materials' steel tubing with insulating material (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1648).
Trade Court Rejects US Steel's Requests to Redact Parts of Decision on Section 232 Exclusion Denials
The Court of International Trade rejected U.S. Steel Corp.'s bid to redact portions of the court's recent decision remanding 31 Section 232 exclusion requests. Judge M. Miller Baker said a showing of good cause alone isn't enough to shield discovery materials after they have been introduced at trial or submitted "in connection with dispositive motions," noting the need for transparency in the judicial system and presumption of public access to court proceedings.