Mediation at the Court of International Trade in six consolidated cases over Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion denials failed to produce a settlement, the court said in a Dec. 14 report. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries (Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00027).

The refunds issued to parties that challenged President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff hike on Turkish steel are either back in the government's hands or on their way, the litigants told the Court of International Trade in a joint status report (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00009).

A group of U.S. steel companies, including U.S. Steel Corp., made their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 8 brief as to why they should be allowed to intervene in multiple cases challenging the Commerce Department's decision to deny an exclusion to Section 232 national security tariffs. The Court of International Trade had denied their right to intervene due to the companies' lack of a legally protectable interest in the cases. The American steel producers countered by arguing that they have a right to intervene based on their participation administratively in the exclusion cases, direct economic stake in the outcome and position as intended beneficiaries of the Section 232 measures (California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2172).

U.S. Steel was again denied the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge at the Court of International Trade, with the court holding that the Pennsylvania steel company did not have a legally protectable interest in the case. According to the Dec. 3 opinion, U.S. Steel cannot intervene in the case since it won't be directly affected by the case's outcome. Judge Claire Kelly said that any harm that U.S. Steel would experience as a result of the court granting a Section 232 exclusion would be indirect since the company has no right to the sale of the covered products.

The Court of International Trade rejected U.S. Steel Corp.'s bid to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial case in a Dec. 3 order, finding that U.S. Steel does not have a "legally protectable interest that will be directly affected by the outcome of this action." The order echoes a previous ruling from the CIT, currently under appeal, that said U.S. Steel doesn't have the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial case since it wouldn't be guaranteed the sale of goods denied the exclusion. In the Dec. 3 opinion, the court also denied U.S. Steel's motion to stay the case pending the appeal of the previous intervention ruling since the plaintiff may be prejudiced by the stay.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Since a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs is virtually identical to its already dismissed action seeking the same thing, it should be dismissed, the Department of Justice argued in a Nov. 24 brief at the Court of International Trade. The new case, brought by the importer, Voestalpine USA, and the purchaser, Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, which challenges the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion, is "legally indistinguishable" from its prior case, and, as such, is moot, the U.S. said (Voestalpine USA Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00290).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade committed a logical error when it dismissed a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the importer and purchaser said in a brief attempting to keep their case alive. Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the purchaser, and Voestalpine USA, the importer, moved for a reconsideration of CIT's decision, which held that the plaintiffs had already received the relief available to them from the Commerce Department in the form of a product exclusion but failed to preserve their ability to receive a refund through a protest or an extension of liquidation (Voestalpine USA Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03829).

The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a Court of International Trade case over steel exporter Mirror Metals' denied Section 232 exclusion requests, finding that it is appropriate to reconsider the exclusion denials. The case concerns 45 exclusion requests for flat-rolled stainless steel products that are supposedly used in large-scale architectural projects. The requests saw objections from three domestic manufacturers, leading to Commerce denying all 45 exclusion bids. The leading reason for the denials given by Commerce was the availability of the domestic capacity to make the products in question (Mirror Metals, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00144).