The U.S. and India announced a deal June 22 that will end India’s retaliatory tariffs on some U.S. goods while leaving in place the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs that prompted them, and also end six World Trade Organization disputes brought by both the U.S. and India.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., asked the Commerce Department to change its rules for Section 232 tariff exclusions for extruded aluminum. In a June 7 letter, he argued that the tariffs protect primary aluminum producers, but that "overly broad tariff exclusion rules" have resulted in insufficient protection for U.S. aluminum extrusions.
The International Trade Commission recently released Revision 7 to the 2023 Harmonized Tariff Schedule, which added subheadings 9903.81.82, 9903.81.83 and 9903.81.84. The subheading extends exclusions for a variety of derivative Ukrainian iron and steel products, if accompanied by certificates of origin, from 25% Section 232 tariffs under subheadings 9903.80.01 and 9903.80.03 entered after June 1.
CBP created Harmonized System Update 2306 on June 6, containing 4,835 Automated Broker Interface records and 1,746 Harmonized Tariff Records. This update includes an extension, which went into effect June 1, to the suspension of Section 232 duties on steel imports and steel article imports from Ukraine as well as the adjustments required by the verification of the 2023 Harmonized Tariff Schedule, CBP said, in a June 7 CSMS message.
The suspension of Section 232 duties on steel articles from Ukraine has been extended for another year and now includes steel from the EU melted and poured in Ukraine, CBP said as part of its guidance on June 5. The suspension is now set to expire on June 1, 2024. Importers must report the certificate of origin for Ukrainian steel or steel articles into the CBP’s Document Imaging System (DIS), the announcement said. If steel or steel deratives are not accompanied by certificates of origin from Ukraine, those items will be subject to the "25 percent ad valorem duty," the guidance said. Importers also must submit the steel mill certificate required by 19 CFR 141.89, the guidance said. The suspension of Section 232 duties is available in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), the guidance said. The extension of the suspension was announced on May 31. The suspension was first announced on May 27, 2022, (see 2205310061).
The negotiations between Europe and the U.S. to create an arrangement that would discourage imports of dirty steel, or steel made from uneconomic excess capacity, "have a long way to go," American Iron and Steel Institute CEO Kevin Dempsey said, speaking to reporters May 16 at AISI's general meeting.
American Iron and Steel Institute CEO Kevin Dempsey thanked Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo for continuing to enforce 25% tariffs on imported steel from most countries, authorized under the Section 232 national security rationale.
While the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), an alternative to the World Trade Organization's Appellate Body, may work for the nations that want an appellate level of review of WTO panel decisions, it doesn't necessarily make sense for U.S. purposes, said Jamieson Greer, former chief of staff for the U.S. trade representative and partner at King & Spalding. Speaking at a May 8 Federalist Society event, Greer said that if the U.S. wanted another level of review at the WTO, the government would simply just start staffing up the AB again rather than pursue a solution under the MPIA.
Heat-treated forged steel rods imported by ME Global are properly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as "other bars" not further worked than forged, rather than in the importer's preferred classification as "grinding balls and similar articles for mills," the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 2 decision.
Importer SXP Schulz Xtruded Products needed a protest to properly challenge CBP's failure to apply a Section 232 duty exclusion on four entries of its steel forged and turned bars, the Court of International Trade ruled. Dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that SXP could have filed for an extension of liquidation while it was waiting for the Commerce Department to correct the erroneous exclusion it issued or simply have filed a protest, which would have queued up jurisdiction under Section 1581(a).