Importer Opposes US Remand Extension Bid in Denied Section 232 Exclusion Request Suit
Importer Seneca Foods Corp. opposed the U.S. attempt to extend the deadline to file its remand results in a suit on the Commerce Department's decision to reject the company's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The government asked for another 31 days to file its remand decision after initially being given 90 days to conduct the remand and a 45-day extension (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
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.
Seneca noted that the government's reasons for the extension request were the same as they were for its first extension: "ongoing work on the remand results for California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States," which is a separate case on denied Section 232 exclusion requests, and the fact that the requests include a "national security review." Seneca said the government didn't mention "any new circumstances that warrant a further extension." The California Steel remand was completed and filed on Feb. 9.
"California Steel Industries does not provide good cause for a second extension here," the brief said. "Preparing the remand in California Steel Industries is not an unforeseen development, as Defendant referenced it in its first motion for an extension, and Defendant managed to complete the remand in that case on a faster schedule per exclusion request."
The national security excuse also "rings hollow," since Seneca's counsel said he has worked with clients on Section 232 exclusion requests for "tin mill products and is not aware of any such exclusions" that are decided on "national security considerations."
Seneca requested eight Section 232 exclusion requests in 2021 and 2022 on its tin mill products. In all of them, U.S. Steel objected, claiming that it had the capacity to fill the importer's orders. Seneca said this claim was "plainly false," though Commerce denied the exclusions anyway. The trade court remanded, finding that Commerce failed to address contradictory evidence that the U.S. industry couldn't timely fill Seneca's orders (see 2310180052).