Metal Importers, Congressional Voices Critique Commerce Changes to Section 232 Exclusions
Metal importers and a senior Republican staffer in the House of Representatives agreed that the Commerce Department's revisions to its Section 232 exclusions process are somewhat of an improvement, but they diverge in their opinions of how helpful the changes will be for the industry. The revisions were announced in an interim final rule published Dec. 14 (see 2012100047); some elements have already taken effect, and others take effect Dec. 29. However, the agency is still accepting comments on the revisions through Feb. 12, 2021.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
A lawyer who advises the American Institute for International Steel said the trade group is glad to see some improvements to efficiency, and said the general approved exclusions procedure should ease some petitioners' concerns. But Steven W. Baker told International Trade Today that “other changes are more problematic. The additional certification on volumes has some justification, but there is a concern it could be used in a punitive fashion, particularly where projected requirements depend in part on the level of economic recovery.”
The Aluminum Association, which represents both primary producers and importers, called the changes “a step in the right direction.” A spokesman said Commerce officials had told them that the department has trained staff to reject requests wherein no alloys are identified, or in cases in which the requestor doesn't say how much he plans to buy from any specific country. That was one of the association's complaints.
But, the spokesman said, “we’ll have to wait to see if the certification has any impact” on another of the group's complaints, which is that requestors ask for such large exclusions that they have no relation to usage. “We’ve seen this problem with can sheet, in particular, where Commerce has granted massive volumes of exclusions that are multiple times larger than the size of the entire U.S. market. To say nothing of historical import levels.”
A senior House staffer said: “The changes in the final proposed rule will generally make the process easier for those who already found the process easy and more difficult for those who have found it difficult.”
He said that the general approved exclusion, which covers products that haven't received objections, only covers about 5,000 exclusions out of nearly 150,000 requested that have been filed in the last 18 months. “The rule also adds an extensive legal certification requirement for requesters, but adds no similar requirement that objectors certify production capacity or timelines,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Unfortunately, there are still many concerns and issues left unaddressed, particularly for businesses that have faced an uneven playing field when seeking tariff relief. More work needs to be done to ensure a transparent, efficient, and fair process for all involved,” he said.
Baker agreed that the changes weren't as wide-reaching as AIIS would have liked. “The objection process remains a significant issue as objections seem to have undue weight in many instances,” he said. “These changes on the whole seem a good start, but more is needed to make the process more manageable and fairly applied.”