CIT Extends Mediation Period in Consolidated Section 232 Exclusion Denial Actions
The Court of International Trade extended on Dec. 16 a mediation period in three cases contesting the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests, until Feb. 15. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries.
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.
CIT consolidated the six challenges to the exclusion denials in August (see 2108190038). In each case, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security issued a blanket rejection of the exclusion request and then filed for a voluntary remand to conduct an independent review of each request once judicial relief was sought. However, the mediation extension was granted in only three of these cases -- the ones brought by North American Interpipe, Evraz Inc. and Alleghany Technologies. On Dec. 14, the court announced that mediation in the case brought by Valbruna Slater Stainless had failed to produce a settlement (see 2112150030), indicating a split in mediation between the six cases.
Before mediation commenced, the government proposed a tranched briefing schedule during litigation to address each exclusion request. The plaintiffs opposed this motion, setting up a battle over how best to proceed on the exclusion denials (see 2109080050). Each of the plaintiffs in the six cases expressed concern over the government's broad remand request. Seeing as each remand request and procedural and fairness concerns are shared among the cases, Judge M. Miller Baker consolidated them to sort through the issue of how to proceed.
(N. Am. Interpipe, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-03825) (Evraz Inc. NA, et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03869) (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).