232 on Derivatives Invalid, Likely Headed for Court of Appeals

The Court of International Trade on April 5 invalidated tariffs on derivate steel and aluminum products that the Trump Administration had imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The decision comes in PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States. The tariffs followed the initial round of tariffs on steel and aluminum in primary forms that were imposed (allegedly) to protect the national security in light of excess global capacity and low capacity utilization in the U.S. 

The issue in the case was whether the subsequent extension of the tariffs to nails, staples, and other “derivative” products was done consistent with the statutory requirements, specifically the 105-day time limit baked into Section 232. The Presidential Proclamation extending 232 duties to derivative products occurred outside that time without a new recommendation from Commerce to restart the clock. The Court had previously denied the Government’s motion to dismiss on this issue and allowed the case to move forward. 

However, in a required joint status report, the United States waived the opportunity to provide information supporting the legality of the extension of the tariffs to derivative products. Furthermore, the Government noted that while it continues to assert that the additional tariffs were legally applied, there was no reason for the Court to delay entering a final judgment. Finally, the Government reserved its arguments for appeal. The Court of International trade took the Government’s invitation and issued a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court declared the Proclamation imposing the tariffs to be invalid and ordered the U.S. to reliquidate the entries without the duties. This puts the issue on a clear path to the Court of Appeals.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl...
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more