The U.S.' voluntary remand request in two Section 232 exclusion cases should be denied in its current form since the government's delayed, tranched solution is "unconscionable," steel importers Allegheny Technologies Inc. and California Steel Industries argued in an Aug. 16 reply brief. Given that Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests are supposed to be decided within 106 days, the Commerce Department's proposed nine to 12 month schedule to reconsider CSI's exclusion requests is "unreasonable" with a "nonsensical" rationale, CSI argued (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923)(California Steel Industries, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00015).

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

Aluminum extrusion producer Kingtom Aluminio requested to intervene in a Court of International Trade case over an antidumping duty evasion investigation that found it transshipped aluminum extrusions from China through the Dominican Republic to skirt the duties. A previous request was denied by Judge Richard Eaton (see 2106210059). Undeterred, Kingtom filed a motion for reconsideration in the court. Eaton permitted the producer on Aug. 5 to support its motion with an affidavit by individuals who can speak to Kingtom's interests in the case along with a brief, with a maximum of 10 pages, to explain how this affidavit satisfies the requirement for intervention (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00198).

Stanley Black & Decker moved to stay proceedings in its case challenging the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff expansion to include steel "derivative" products, in a July 30 filing in the Court of International Trade pending the appeal of the PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. case (Stanley Black & Decker v. U.S., CIT #21-00262). Seeing as the PrimeSource case, currently working its way through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, is the case on the forefront of the Section 232 steel derivative tariff question, resolution of Stanley's case should wait until its appeal is settled, the company argued. "The ultimate resolution of the PrimeSource case will likely resolve this matter without the necessity of going to trial, or, alternatively, it may narrow the issues in dispute," the brief said. "Therefore, a stay of this matter until 65 days after a final decision in the PrimeSource case would be the most efficient course of action, serve the interests of the parties, and promote judicial economy." Stanley filed its case after PrimeSource was decided (see 2105270086).

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

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

The Commerce Department sought a voluntary remand in another Court of International Trade case over Section 232 tariff exclusion denials, on July 26, offering a remand schedule of four tranches, with the fourth to be submitted 325 days after a potential remand order. The case was brought by California Steel Industries, which challenged 193 exclusion request denials from Commerce and then offered the four-tiered remand schedule to address logistics concerns (California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00015). The voluntary remand motion is one of many offered by Commerce which, following the JSW Steel, Inc. v. United States CIT decision, has been remanding other Section 232 exclusion request challenges (see 2107230038). Asked if it's the agency's policy to issue blanket rejections of the exclusion requests and then seek voluntary remands in CIT cases, a Commerce spokesperson said, "The Commerce Department does not comment on matters currently in litigation. The Bureau of Industry and Security reviews each exclusion request on a case-by-case basis."

The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand on July 22 to reconsider exclusion requests made for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. In what is becoming a trend of the agency seeking remands at the Court of International Trade in cases over tariff exclusion requests (see 2107220057), Commerce wants to establish a new and independent review of the record to weigh all the evidence in the case. In light of the JSW Steel, Inc. v. United States CIT decision, which found that Commerce's exclusion request denials were "devoid of explanation and frustrate judicial review," the agency needs to take another look at its denials, it said (Evraz Inc. NA v. United States, CIT #20-03869).

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

The Commerce Department wants another shot to consider the Section 232 tariff exclusion requests filed by Allegheny Technologies Incorporated after the agency initially rejected them. In a July 21 motion for voluntary remand in the Court of International Trade, Commerce said that in light of a recent CIT decision, JSW Steel, Inc. v. United States, which found that Commerce's exclusion request denials were "devoid of explanation and frustrate judicial review," the agency needs to take another look at its denials (Allegheny Technologies Incoporated et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03923).