Steel Importer Blasts Commerce's Decision to Reject 14 Section 232 Exclusion Requests
The Commerce Department's denial of LE Commodities' 14 requests for exclusions from paying Section 232 duties on speciality steel products constitutes a "blatant disregard of its obligation to engage in fair, reasoned decision-making," LE Commodities said in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The agency failed to consider evidence establishing that the steel products were not reasonably available in the U.S. in a "sufficient quantity," the importer said, and didn't provide a sufficiently reasoned basis for each of its decisions rejecting the exclusion requests (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The 14 exclusion requests concern imports of stainless steel welded sanitary tubing entered in 2019 and 2020. While U.S. steel company United Industries said it could manufacture these products in the quality and quantity required by LE Commodities, the importer submitted evidence showing that United had lead times beyond those asserted in the objections, among other evidence. Commerce rejected each exclusion request.
In its motion for judgment, LE Commodities said Commerce merely "parroted United's claims" and "disregarded significant probative evidence on the record demonstrating that the subject steel was not sufficiently available in the United States within LE Commodities' required timeframes." The importer said that United's objections were "deficient under the regulations," since the objector failed to provide any evidence to support or back up its objections or surrebutals.
Commerce "simply" repeated the objections raised by United in denying the exclusion requests, LE Commodities said, including when it issued a "single, one-page memo" responding to six of the exclusion requests. This "clearly does not reflect how United's and LE Commodities' claims were evaluated and weighted in order to arrive at a conclusion," the brief said.
"A full and cogent explanation of Commerce’s decision should have included an analysis of the content of the emails LE Commodities submitted, and of the additional industry information, and why Commerce determined this critical information could support a finding that United met the quantity and timeliness criteria," LE Commodities said.