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.
Popular posts from this blog
There are many pages of text in Meyer Corporation v. United States , a recent decision of the U.S. Court of International. One hundred twenty, to be exact. I will try to give you the gist here. And, it turns out, the gist might matter. There are two issues in this case. First, whether imported cookware is entitled to duty-free entry under the Generalized System of Preferences. Second whether the importer legally claimed that the sale price from the related vendor to a related reseller represented the transaction value under the "first sale doctrine." The GSP issue is easier to explain, so let's start there. The clad cookware subject to this case was made in Thailand. At the time of entry, the merchandise was classifiable in 7326.93.0045 and qualifies for GSP duty-free entry if it satisfies the rule of origin. Under that rule, 35% of the value of the merchandise must originate in materials from or direct processing in Thailand. In this instance, a major input material was
Yesterday, at a Georgetown CLE event, I participated in a mock oral argument on the classification of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo action figures. You can read my brief here . The issue came down to whether "action figures" are dolls for classification purposes and whether Luke and Han are human beings. Let me know what you think. Below are my notes for the oral argument. I lost. May it please the Court. The parties agree on many key facts in this case. Galaxy recognizes that its Luke Skywalker and Han Solo action figures might, to the lay person, be viewed as dolls in the ordinary course. Galaxy contends, however, that the facts of this case and more important, the facts of life "a long time ago, in a galaxy far away" mean that for purposes of tariff classification neither the Luke Skywalker figure nor the Han Solo figure are dolls. The sole factual reason for this is that, despite appearances to the contrary, neither character is a human being. The La
UPDATED BELOW: Garner's The Elements of Legal Style, Rule 2.6 (Oxford, 1991)(emphasis in original) states the following: 2.6 Form Singular Possessives by Adding 's to the Singular Form of the Noun The rules holds true regardless of how the word ends: thus, witness's, Jones's, Congress's, and testatrix's . There are three exceptions to the rule. First, the word its is possessive, it's being the contraction for it is. Second, your and hers , which are absolute possessives, take no apostrophe. Third, biblical and classical names that end with a -zes , or -eez sound take only the apostrophe. Thus, Jesus' Moses' Aristophanes' Socrates' If the possessive form seems awkward to you, rephrase: the laws of Moses instead of Moses' laws , the action of Congress or the congressional action instead of Congress's action . Given the treatment of Customs as a singular entity, I take it from Garner (my go-to grammar guy) that the CAFC