Exporter Files Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance With Order Over Section 232 Bonding
The U.S.'s reversal of its position by refusing to allow plaintiff Oman Fasteners to post bond for its potential Section 232 steel and aluminum liability "smacks of outright bad faith," Oman Fasteners argued in a Sept. 20 emergency motion to compel at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiff argued that the court should compel the U.S. to comply with an order it issued in April, otherwise the U.S. could "artificially inflate" the exporter's dumping margin in an ongoing antidumping proceeding, "permanently costing Oman Fasteners millions of dollars" (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #20-00037).
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.
The April decision ordered Oman Fasteners to make duty deposits for potential Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff liability on all entries affected by its case challenging the validity of the national security duties (see 2204150053). The trade court in October 2021 stayed its decision, putting a hold on liquidation of Oman Fasteners' entries subject to the tariffs but directing Oman Fasteners and the government to negotiate on how to ensure the government gets paid the Section 232 tariffs on derivatives it's owed, should it win the appeal (see 2110150029). The order directed Oman Fasteners to make the duty deposits, allowing the plaintiff to continue the deposits after reaching an agreement on the resumption of bonding.
In its emergency motion to compel, Oman Fasteners said it has complied with the order but that the U.S. has not. CBP allegedly has refused to agree to future bonding and honor the plaintiff's current customs bond after causing the exporter to increase that bond. The order explicitly lets Oman Fasteners choose to stop the Section 232 duty deposits after reaching an agreement with the U.S. on the resumption of bonding, giving the government the discretion to participate in negotiations over the size of the bond needed to secure its revenue, Oman Fasteners said.
"Given the clear language of the Security Order, and the equally clear procedural history leading to that Order, Defendants cannot seriously now claim that they have the discretion to completely refuse to negotiate with Oman Fasteners regarding bonding of potential Section 232 liability," the brief said. "Nor should the Court permit Defendants to simply ignore the Courts’ Orders, or the bargain that Defendants themselves struck."
Oman Fasteners further argued that the U.S. doubles down on its violation of the order by refusing to fully honor the current bond. In response to the motion, the trade court ordered the U.S. to respond to the motion to compel via a text-only order (see 2209200078).