Turkish Steel Importer Challenges Section 232 Tariff Exclusion Refund Denial
Turkish steel importer Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret filed a lawsuit April 22 in the Court of International Trade, challenging CBP's denial of its refund request for Section 232 duties, claiming that its goods were granted exclusions. Borusan, along with the consignee of the imports Gulf Coast Express Pipeline (GCX), said it was granted exclusions for specialized X70 large diameter welded line pipe that retroactively applied to imports brought in from Turkey in 2018. Two exclusions were granted for the lined pipe for the construction of the GCX pipeline, so Borusan attempted to use the exclusions to retroactively obtain refunds for Section 232 duties paid but was denied by CBP.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Borusan is seeking relief in the form of a refund, prior to liquidation, of the Section 232 tariffs already paid and interest payments for the refunds at the time of liquidation. During Borusan's process of attempting to gain the refunds, CBP told the importer would not give refunds because the “mill test certificates were allegedly not submitted with the entries and certain unspecified chemistries stated in the approved exclusions allegedly did not match the submitted mill test certificates,” according to the complaint. It said CBP failed to respond to additional requests for information from Borusan and subsequently denied a protest of the exclusion rejection.
Of the 20 entries of pipe Borusan made, one was given a different description by CBP and separately litigated by Borusan in CIT where a settlement was reached, granting the 232 exclusions (see 2010200029). Borusan now says the remaining 19 entries were identical to the 20th entry, giving CBP no reason to treat them differently. "There is, therefore, no factual basis for CBP to afford different treatment to the pipe subject to the stipulated judgment and the pipe subject to this appeal," the complaint said.