President Donald Trump's directive in his proclamation expanding Section 232 steel tariffs to assess penalties for the misclassification of entries resulting in non-payment of the duties without regard for "evidence of mitigating factors" may run afoul of existing customs laws, trade lawyers said. Even if the directive stays within the bounds of the current statutory scheme, expect more prior disclosures and proactive steps to ensure the proper customs treatment of steel entries, the lawyers added.
The inaugural use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, which saw President Donald Trump set a 10% duty on all goods from China (see 2502030044), has sparked plenty of speculation as to how these tariffs could be challenged in court. One such argument is a statutory claim rooted in the text of IEEPA.
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 Solar Energy Industries Association urged the Court of International Trade to not allow CBP to reliquidate entries of solar panels that were subject to a preliminary injunction from CIT, saying during oral arguments this week that there's not a strong enough reason to reverse CBP's inadvertent liquidation. The U.S. argued that a court order was needed to "effectuate" the court's suspension of liquidation and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in the case (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).
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."
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.
A Wisconsin man filed a pro se lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging the president's ability to impose tariffs, arguing that any attempt by the president to levy import duties represents an improper delegation of power under the U.S. Constitution. The individual, Gary Barnes, said imposing tariffs "is not within the jurisdiction of the President's duties," noting that the power to levy tariffs rests solely with Congress (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).
The U.S. could use the False Claims Act to more aggressively combat tariff evasion, attorneys at Ropes & Gray said in a Feb. 3 alert. Companies should "carefully scrutinize their import policies and procedures to ensure they are adhering to all applicable laws," the firm said, adding that importers should ensure that they have "appropriate avenues" for internal and external parties to bring confidential reports to the company's attention.
China opened a dispute at the World Trade Organization on Feb. 5 to challenge the new 10% tariff imposed by the U.S. on all goods from China, claiming that the measure violates the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. China said that not only do the duties violate the U.S. government's "Schedule of Concessions and Commitments," they're also "discriminatory and protectionist in nature."
DOJ under President Donald Trump likely will pursue greater criminal enforcement of the most recent tariffs imposed on China to serve as a "general deterrent" and "punish instances of serious misconduct," attorneys at BakerHostetler said in a recent post. In response, foreign parties should be "mindful of their potential criminal exposure," partners Artie McConnell, Jennifer Solari and Michael Snarr said.