President Donald Trump's addition of Section 232 tariffs on finished products of steel and aluminum was “invalid,” Court of International Trade Judges Timothy Stanceu and Jennifer Choe-Groves said in an April 5 ruling. The ruling is the result of a challenge from PrimeSource Building Products, which said the presidential proclamation that imposed the tariffs on steel and aluminum “derivatives” was improper because it was issued after the statutory deadline.
The Court of International Trade found that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding Section 232 tariffs to steel and aluminum “derivatives,” in an April 5 decision granting refunds to steel nail importer PrimeSource Building Products. Judges Timothy Stanceu and Jennifer Choe-Groves, as part of a three-judge panel, struck down the tariff expansion, ruling that the president exceeded his authority to impose tariffs when he elected to extend them to derivative products. Judge M. Miller Baker, the remaining judge on the panel, dissented from the opinion.
U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai held a video call with Turkey's trade minister, Ruhsar Pekcan. Pekcan apparently brought up Section 232 tariffs on Turkish steel, and according to the U.S. readout, Tai and Pekcan talked about ways to coordinate on “the global overcapacity of steel and aluminum.” Tai also discussed with Pekcan how to coordinate on digital services taxation, and opportunities to increase market access for U.S goods in Turkey and vice versa.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 22-28:
Alcohol trade groups and the retailers and restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages are asking for the tariffs on distilled spirits in connection with the Section 232 tariffs to be lifted and the pause in tariffs on wines and spirits in the aircraft subsidy case to be made permanent. Calling themselves the Toasts Not Tariffs Coalition, the 47-member coalition made the call March 23. They noted that European countries continue to tax bourbon and whiskey at 25%, and that that rate is set to double on June 1, because of U.S. tariffs on British and European Union-made steel.
On the same day that 37 trade associations worked to draw attention to a renewed push to eliminate Section 232 tariffs, a left of center think tank published a paper disagreeing with the arguments that the Tariff Reform Coalition is making, that steel and aluminum sanctions cost more jobs in manufacturing than they saved at primary steel producers.
A scholar at the market-oriented Mercatus Center, a research organization at George Mason University, said that although 25% tariffs on steel and 10% tariffs on aluminum have now been in place for three years, there's no sign they've successfully reduced global overcapacity in those metals. Christine McDaniel, a senior research fellow at the center, cited a Wall Street Journal article that found that the steel industry was not revived by the price protection from imports. McDaniel wrote in a research paper that the administration should be asked what it would achieve to leave the tariffs in place indefinitely. But if they are to stay, McDaniel said the exclusions process should be reformed.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna asked probing questions on the ability of the president to implement or alter Section 232 national security tariffs with few impediments, during oral argument on March 18. The judge questioned Department of Justice counsel Tara Hogan about the government's defense of tariff alterations President Donald Trump made in 2018 and said that the way the government interpreted the law on tariff modifications would not be applicable in his line of business.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, one of the leaders of an effort to give Congress more of a voice in Section 232 tariffs, reintroduced a bipartisan bill with six co-sponsors that would give the Defense Department responsibility for certifying that imports are a national security threat, and would allow Congress to rescind trade restrictions under Section 232 through the use of a joint resolution of disapproval. Portman explained that disapproval is limited to oil restrictions, and that was added to the statute in 1980 “in response to concerns about the misuse of the statute.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 8-14: