The Court of International Trade on Feb. 4 denied a broad challenge to Section 232 tariffs on steel products (see 1912040033), finding against a group of steel importers that had challenged the initial proclamation that set the tariffs, as well as procedural steps that formed the basis for the action. One of several recent cases challenging the tariffs, this one differed in its focus on the Commerce Department report that preceded the tariffs, as well as the proclamation's failure to set an explicit expiration date. The trade court found in favor of the government on both issues, holding that the Commerce report was not a final agency action that could be challenged in court and that the law behind Section 232 does not require the president to decide a date when the tariffs will end.

Importers will need to review entries made between Oct. 5, 2019, and Oct. 28, 2020, that were supposed to include third-country antidumping and countervailing duty case numbers that couldn't be added due to a problem in ACE, CBP said in a Feb. 2 CSMS message. The ACE glitch left filers unable to include any of 19 third-country case numbers with the entries, CBP said. The importers will have 60 days to rectify the issue for any affected entries, and failure to “take action within the sixty-day period may result in further actions by CBP,” it said.

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Jan. 25-29 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

President Joe Biden reversed a Trump administration decision to move from 10% tariffs to quotas on aluminum exported from the United Arab Emirates. The proclamation, published Feb. 1, noted that imports of aluminum have “substantially decreased” since the imposition of Section 232 tariffs, and that imports from the UAE fell by 25%. Trade data says that imports of aluminum fell 8% from 2018 to 2019; they fell 10% from 2017 to 2018, the year the tariffs began.

CBP can’t refund excise taxes mistakenly assessed on a wine importer as a result of an ACE processing error, the agency said in a ruling issued in 2019 but only publicly released on its ruling database Jan. 31, 2021. Despite the double assessment of excise tax having resulted from its own error, CBP held that its regulations only provide for refunds of excise taxes under certain circumstances, none of which apply to this particular situation. Instead, the importer must apply directly to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, CBP said in HQ H294599.

The Senate version of a House bill on preventing the importation of goods made with forced labor in China's Xinjiang region has been reintroduced. Although the House bill passed in September 2020 on a 406-3 vote (see 2009220038), it too, will have to be reintroduced, since this is a new Congress.

The top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee said he “would really like to see” the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill move quickly, but the time and attention needed to pass COVID-19 relief measures may get in the way. “I don’t know how much oxygen the COVID stimulus bill will suck up in Congress,” Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said Jan. 28.

CBP plans to propose some new requirements for importing low-value shipments, Craig Clark of the Office of the Commissioner, Office of Trade Relations, said during the virtual Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (ACSCC) meeting Jan. 28. “We are taking steps to integrate the results of both the [Section] 321 data pilot and the Entry Type 86 test into a new Section 321 data collection process through a notice of proposed rulemaking,” he said. “Included in that NPRM is a requirement for mandatory security data elements for all Section 321 shipments, and that is going to be agnostic to the mode of transportation and will include international mail as well as additional mandatory data elements if an entry is filed,” he said.

CBP will use a “scalpel approach” to enforcement of the recently issued withhold release order on cotton and tomato products from China’s Xinjiang region (see 2101130053), Brenda Smith, CBP executive assistant commissioner-trade, said during a Jan. 27 event hosted by the Washington International Trade Association. “We are committed to taking a scalpel approach and are looking and continuing to gather information and ensure that our targeting is focused on the highest risk shipments,” she said. The WRO “will be a challenge to enforce” because of the amount of cotton that comes from the area, she said.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 27 declined to dismiss a nail importer's challenge to Section 232 steel "derivatives" tariffs, but stopped short of finding in the importer's favor. In a lengthy opinion that drew an even longer dissent, two members of a three-judge CIT panel ruled against the government's motion to dismiss PrimeSource's claims that the derivatives tariffs ran afoul of the deadlines for tariff changes under Section 232, but held that more information was needed before it could render a final decision.