US Steel Wants Stay in Section 232 Exclusion Case Until Question of Intervention Resolved
American steel giant U.S. Steel Corp. is seeking a stay in Russia-based steel company NLMK Pennsylvania's challenge to the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion denials for its steel entries until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules on whether U.S. Steel can intervene in related cases. In its Oct. 27 motion at the Court of International Trade, U.S. Steel argued that "it is vital" for it to be able to intervene in the case and "represent its interests in the continued imposition of the Section 232 tariffs -- interests that will not be adequately represented by Defendant in this action" (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).
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.
In May, CIT denied U.S. Steel and other domestic steel producers the right to intervene in six challenges to Section 232 tariff exclusion denials (see 2105260037). The court found that the steel producers failed to claim a "legally protectable" interest in the transaction at issue in the case, have a direct relationship with the litigation or show that their interests are not adequately addressed by the U.S. government defense. U.S. Steel appealed this decision for all six cases.
Now, litigation in NLMK's Section 232 exclusion denial case should be stayed until the Federal Circuit rules on the appeal, U.S. Steel said. Because "the ultimate relief that NLMK seeks in this action is the return of cash deposits for Section 232 duties that have already been paid, it will not suffer any further harm from staying this case while the Federal Circuit adjudicates the appeal in California Steel," the brief said. "Thus, all relevant factors point towards granting a stay in this proceeding."