Section 232 Exclusions

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 23 sent back the Commerce Department's rejection of NLMK Pennsylvania's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests, with Judge Claire Kelly finding Commerce didn't support its determinations that the objectors to the exclusion requests could provide "suitable substitutes" and make enough of the steel slab subject to the exclusion requests.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 23 order sent back the Commerce Department's decision to deny NLMK Pennsylvania's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests for certain steel slabs. Judge Claire Kelly found Commerce did not properly support its positions that the exclusion objectors offered a "suitable substitute" for the steel slab needed by NLMK and could provide NLMK with enough quantity.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Jan. 4 in a case denying a group of U.S. steel companies the right to intervene in a series of cases challenging denied exclusion requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The mandate comes after the court denied the steel companies' rehearing bid over the decision (see 2212280017). In the case, the Court of International Trade and later the Federal Circuit said that a proposed intervenor must have a legally protectable interest in the transaction at issue, have a direct relationship with the litigation where the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct judgment, or show its interests are not adequately expressed by the government. The courts ruled the steel companies failed on all three fronts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a set of domestic steel companies' bid for a rehearing of the court's denial of its bid to intervene in a series of cases challenging denied exclusion requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 28 dismissed an appeal from Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline over Section 232 exclusion requests. The appellants asked for the case to be dismissed after CBP dropped the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the entries at issue (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).

U.S. Steel Corp., defendant-intervenor in a case over a denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion request, filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 14. The notice pointed to "developments" in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, California Steel Industries v. U.S., in which the appellate court denied U.S. Steel the right to intervene in a different challenge to Section 232 exclusion request denials. Those "developments" reference U.S. Steel Corp.'s motion for rehearing (see 2210250056), in which it argued that the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent. The defendant-intervenor alerted the trade court to these developments "as they may result in a change to Federal Circuit law regarding the rights of parties to intervene in actions before the Court" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 21 opinion let exporter Oman Fasteners stop paying cash deposits over its potential Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff liability in a case on the validity of the national security duties on "derivative" products. A previous court order let Oman Fasteners stop making duty deposits after reaching an agreement with the U.S. on the resumption of bonding. The U.S. said the company wasn't entitled to bonding since it had failed to abide by the arrangement. A three-judge panel ruled that the U.S. shall exclude Oman Fasteners from the need to post cash deposits for potential Section 232 liability until the U.S. can get another order from the court or Oman Fasteners voluntarily enters into an agreement that modifies the terms of the court's opinion.

CBP's denial of plaintiff-appellant Borusan Mannesmann's post summary corrections (PSCs) and administrative refund request constitutes a protestable decision, meaning Borusan had jurisdiction to seek Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions, Borusan and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline argued in an Oct. 17 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also said that Federal Circuit precedent established that CBP's denial of a timely request for a refund of previously paid duties can constitute a protestable decision, and while these precedential opinions do not concern unliquidated entries as is the case with Borusan, there is nothing limiting these decisions (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).

A group of domestic steel manufacturers doesn't have the right to intervene in a spate of challenges to denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Sept. 8 opinion. Ruling against the Court of International Trade's opinion that the would-be intervenors did not establish standing, Judges Kimberly Moore and Todd Hughes ultimately found that the interveners nevertheless failed to identify a legally protectable interest to qualify as intervenors under the trade court's rules.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 8 opinion denied a group of domestic steel manufacturers the right to intervene in six cases challenging denied exclusions to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Judges Kimberly Moore and Todd Hughes affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling that the domestic producers did not have a legally protectable interest in the case, though they parted from the trade court's position in ruling that the manufacturers established standing to intervene. While they had standing, the lack of a legally protectable interest stunted their bid to join the litigation. Judge Pauline Newman dissented from the majority opinion, ruling the manufacturers have clear economic interests in the tariff exclusion requests, establishing their right to intervene.