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.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Dec. 13 remanded the Commerce Department's rejection of 31 of importer California Steel Industries' Section 232 exclusion requests. Judge M. Miller Baker found that Commerce failed to consider whether objector U.S. Steel Corp. could supply the entire amount of slab represented across all 31 exclusions as opposed to just the slab covered by one exclusion request. However, Baker sustained Commerce's rejection of another 14 exclusion requests from California Steel, finding that the agency reasonably found U.S. Steel could timely provide slab to the importer in a sufficient quantity.
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 Court of International Trade in a decision made public Oct. 23 sustained the Commerce Department's rejection of eight Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests from importer Seneca Foods Corp. on its tin mill product entries. Judge Gary Katzmann said the rejections were backed by substantial evidence and in line with agency practice.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Oct. 23 sustained the Commerce Department's rejection of eight Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests from importer Seneca Foods Corp. Judge Gary Katzmann said the rejections were backed by substantial evidence after Commerce addressed various emails submitted by Seneca to show U.S. Steel's alleged inability to make tin mill products in sufficient quantity to satisfy the importer's needs. Katzmann added that Commerce's focus on "prospective evidence of steel production" is in line with the tariff's purpose and effect.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 21 in a confidential decision sustained the Commerce Department's denials of all eight of importer Seneca Foods Corp.'s requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Judge Gary Katzmann gave the parties until Oct. 22 to review the confidential information in the decision. Katzmann previously remanded the exclusion rejection on the grounds the Bureau of Industry and Security failed to address contradicting evidence that the U.S. industry couldn't timely provide the importer's tin mill products (see 2310180052). On remand, BIS stuck with its rejections of the exclusion requests, finding that U.S. Steel can make the same products in a sufficient quantity and in a timely manner to satisfy Seneca's needs (see 2404020047) (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 18 granted the voluntary dismissal of importer LE Commodities' challenge to the Commerce Department's rejection of its requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs (LE Commodities v. U.S., CIT # 23-00220).