Importer Says Recent Section 232 Exclusion Denial Bolsters Case Against Its Own Denials
Importer Seneca Foods Corp. filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 21, claiming that a recent Section 232 exclusion request denial from the Commerce Department is relevant to the resolution of its case (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., 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.
In the recent denial, Commerce "explained its approach to resolving conflicting claims about" an objector's availability to produce the requested volume of a good that's subject to the Section 232 duty exclusion request. The agency said it will defer to the objector's statements where no supporting evidence is produced because the objector is in the "best position to know its own products, manufacturing abilities, and timeframes."
The importer said that unlike this recent case, "Seneca did submit documentary evidence of unavailability, which under this new decision should have been credited." The only objector in its case, U.S. Steel Corp., "submitted no supporting documentary evidence in its objection or surrebuttal."
As a result, the court should say that Commerce "must defer" to the importer's claims that U.S. Steel couldn't make the requested amount of canned goods Seneca requested exclusions for.
Seneca brought its suit in 2022 to claim that Commerce failed to meaningfully reject its Section 232 exclusion requests (see 2208220034). U.S. Steel objected to Seneca's six exclusion requests, claiming that while it didn't have the short-term capacity to fill the importer's orders, it expected to have the capacity later in the year. Commerce asked for a remand in the case to reconsider the exclusion denials, only to continue denying the requests at the trade court (see 2404020047).