The president may impose greater Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day timeframe for action set out in the statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 13 ruling. Overturning a lower court ruling, the Federal Circuit found that the underlying law's deadline for the president to take "action" can refer to a "plan of action" carried out over a period of time following the 105-day deadline. That authority is not unlimited, though, in that modifications must be related to the underlying reasoning for the tariffs and those reasons can't be "stale," CAFC said.
President Donald Trump did not violate procedural timelines when he raised tariffs on Turkish steel from 25 to 50% in August 2018, beyond the 90-day deadline and 15-day implementation period for initial Section 232 tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 13 opinion. Reversing a Court of International Trade decision, the Federal Circuit threw a wrench in a key argument against certain Section 232 tariffs that action beyond the statutory timelines should not be allowed.
The Commerce Department released a redacted version July 6 of its Section 232 report on the national security implications of U.S. imports of autos and auto parts. The Bureau of Industry and Security posted the report and its appendices, dated Feb. 17, 2019. Then-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross suggested two scenarios for tariffs that the Trump administration could impose if USMCA negotiations weren't productive. No tariffs were imposed as a result of the report, but the possibility of tariffs remained a threat for years after.
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
The European Union and the U.S. working together have the leverage to change China's distortions in the world economy, experts speaking during a three-day series on EU-U.S. trade issues said. But it's not easy, with the economic interests of German manufacturers in China, the history of trade tensions across the Atlantic, and bureaucratic torpor on both sides, they said.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from June 14-18 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The moderator of a panel on the results of the president's visit to Europe asked the European Union's ambassador to the U.S., Stavros Lambrinidis, what he would say to critics who say that nothing was solved on the EU-U.S. irritants? Those critics say that the can was just kicked down the road.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 14-20.
The United Kingdom and the U.S. announced an agreement in the Airbus-Boeing dispute in line with the previously announced agreement between the U.S. and the European Union (see 2106150021). In the agreement, both sides will keep 25% tariffs off a variety of products and 10% tariffs off aircraft for at least five years, and will use a working group to hash out any disagreements on whether either government's support for their large aircraft maker is distorting sales. They also will work together to counter Chinese or other countries' distortions, the June 17 statement said.
The Coalition of American Metal Manufacturers and Users said the U.S. negotiators aiming to end Section 232 tariffs by addressing steel overcapacity should listen to U.S. industrial users of the metals.