International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from March 8-12 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Department of Justice declined to submit additional arguments in defense of President Donald Trump's decision to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to steel derivatives beyond its original argument in front of the Court of International Trade, guaranteeing that the court will overturn the steel derivatives tariffs but allowing for an appeal.
The U.S. Court of International Trade dismissed a challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs' exclusion process, finding that the importer-specific exclusion process is constitutional. In the case, steel importer Thyssenkrupp Materials and its subsidiaries said that by excluding individual importers from the tariffs, the process violated the Constitution's uniformity clause by discriminating against steel and aluminum importers based on geography (see 2004230053). Thyssenkrupp also held that the exclusion process was inconsistent with presidential proclamations dictating how the exclusions should be conducted. Judges Claire Kelly, Gary Katzmann and Jane Restani in their March 10 opinion were unconvinced of both arguments and granted the government defense's motion to dismiss the case.
Congress should repeal the Section 232 provisions that allow the president to impose tariffs in response to national security threats, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Scott Lincicome and Research Fellow Inu Manak said in a policy analysis released March 9. The statute is "superfluous given the expansion of presidential trade and other national security powers in laws enacted" since Section 232 became law in 1962, they said. Absent the appetite for a full repeal of the tariffs -- Lincicome and Manak's first proposal -- the writers floated other options for congressional changes, including amending the law to hand final say over Section 232 to Congress, providing for judicial review, narrowing what constitutes “national security,” moving Section 232 investigations to an independent agency and including a public interest provision.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 1-7:
Tariffs that the U.S. imposed on billions of dollars' worth of European imports to punish them for excessive subsidies to Airbus, and tariffs that the European Union imposed on billions of dollars' worth of U.S. exports over Boeing subsidies will be lifted for four months, the two sides said in a joint statement March 5. No date was given for the start of the temporary removal.
The tariffs on British goods on the Airbus list will be lifted for four months to create space for settling the Airbus-Boeing dispute between the United Kingdom and U.S. The U.K. had already suspended its tariffs on American goods over Boeing subsidies on Jan. 1. That suspension will also last another four months. The tariffs on British imports were lifted immediately.
The Commerce Department “delivered its investigation to determine the effects on United States national security of imports" of vanadium to the White House on Feb. 22, a spokesperson said. Commerce began the investigation last year after requests by two domestic producers, AMG Vanadium and U.S. Vanadium (see 2006020041). Commerce referred questions about the report's contents to the White House, which didn't respond to a request for comment. If Commerce concluded that vanadium imports are a national security threat, the president has 90 days to decide whether to accept the findings and recommendations, according to a Congressional Research Service report on Section 232 investigations.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Feb. 22-26 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Across dozens of pages of written answers to Senate Finance Committee members, U.S. trade representative nominee Katherine Tai often avoided directly answering questions, instead pledging to work with senators on their priorities. One of the most common questions posed to Tai was whether she would renew Section 301 exclusions that expired last year; as well, whether she would allow companies that were denied exclusions another chance at a request; and whether she would reopen the exclusion process.