This morning in metals news: the US Court of International Trade rejected a tariff exclusion process challenge; meanwhile, a metals trader ordered 10,000 tons of copper blister and got something else; and, finally, aluminum is gaining popularity as a material for outdoor living products.
Grab your coffee and hear MetalMiner’s latest forecast for aluminum, copper, stainless and carbon steel. The webinar is on Wednesday, March 24, at 10 a.m. CDT: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_6J8wAyYySfihVk3ZUH9yMA.
US Court of International Trade rules on Section 232 tariff exclusion process
Michigan-based metals supplier Thyssenkrupp Materials NA, Inc., challenged the Section 232 tariff exclusion process, arguing it leads to “exclusions on an application basis to specific requestors and not automatically to all importers of a particular article, creates a non-uniform tax across the United States in violation of the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution.”
Former President Donald Trump used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose tariffs in 2018. Trump imposed tariffs of 10% on imported aluminum and 25% on imported steel.
In addition, US importers could apply for exclusions to the tariffs through the Department of Commerce.
Thyssenkrupp Materials NA asked for two forms of relief. They asked for refunds on duties already paid, plus interest, for any good that any requestor has received an exclusion. Furthermore, the importer asked for an injunction preventing Customs and Border Protection from collecting duties on any product that has been granted an exclusion by any requestor.
The government, meanwhile, argued the importer did not make a claim for an exclusion that had been denied. As a result, it argued the importer had not received injury from the process.
The three-judge panel sided with the government in the case.
“Because the exclusion process promulgated by Commerce does not violate the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution and does not reflect an improper construction of the President’s Proclamations, the Government’s motion to dismiss is granted,” the judges concluded.