The latest on Russia sanctions from the International Trade and Supply Chain Team
Read Now

On September 30, 2021, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) filed a motion requesting a voluntary remand to review 502 Section 232 exclusion request denials it issued to Voestalpine High Performance Metals Corporation and Ergo Specialty Steels, Incorporated (collectively “Voestalpine, et al.”) beginning in 2018.  Specifically, Commerce in its motion acknowledges that it lacks documentation explaining why it rejected all 502 requests.  This motion for voluntary remand comes only a couple months after Commerce requested the same type of voluntary remand in six separate Section 232 appeals.

In its September 15, 2021, order, the court rejected Commerce’s motions for voluntary remand and instead consolidated the six separate cases concerning similar denials of Section 232 exclusion requests and collectively referred the cases to court-annexed mediation. Specifically, the court ordered that (1) all cases are stayed for a maximum of 90 days beginning September 15th in which time mediation should be conducted and concluded, and (2) all cases be returned to the active calendar unless settlement is reached during the mediation process.

The court seems set to follow the same course in Voestalpine et al.’s appeal. On October 1, 2021, the CIT issued an order (1) staying Plaintiffs time to respond to Commerce’s September 30th motion until further notice and (2) requiring both parties to file statements on whether this case should be referred to court-annexed mediation.

Commerce in its statement filed on October 6, 2021, opposes the court-annexed mediation. In its statement, Commerce argues that the differences in the products that are the subject of the exclusion requests do not allow for a speedy resolution through mediation. Commerce also points out that in Voestalpine et al.’s initial complaint, the relief sought was a remand to Commerce.

Voestalpine et al., in its statement filed on October 8, 2021, rebuts both of Commerce’s arguments and supports court-annexed mediation. In its statement, Voestalpine et al. points out that the issue is not that Commerce denied the exclusion requests, but rather that it did not include the reasoning behind any denials at issue. Voestalpine et al. also argues that it did not seek relief through remand to Commerce merely for reconsideration of the exclusion requests. Rather, it sought a remand to Commerce with a requirement “to refund the Section 232 tariffs previously paid by Plaintiffs.”

It appears there may be a trend developing. The court seems reluctant to allow these actions to fully go back to Commerce while, at the same time, it is reluctant to provide plaintiffs the relief sought: a declaration that Commerce’s denials were unlawful.

It may also be that the court is waiting to see whether global politics will impact the status of Section 232 tariffs in the near future. Either way, it seems likely that this case will be referred to the same mediation process as the cases earlier this year and that a trend of court-annexed mediation is developing where Section 232 exclusion request denials are concerned.

As a reminder, the Trump Administration instituted Section 232 national security tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018 and also set up an exclusion process for importers if they met certain qualifications and were able to demonstrate that the product was not available from any other source and did not harm national security interests.  The exclusions were granted on a product specific and importer specific basis.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Nithya Nagarajan Nithya Nagarajan

Nithya’s extensive background in U.S. trade issues spans 25 years and includes various roles in a number of federal government agencies, including the Department of Commerce Department of Justice, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. She assists clients with administrative and regulatory…

Nithya’s extensive background in U.S. trade issues spans 25 years and includes various roles in a number of federal government agencies, including the Department of Commerce Department of Justice, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. She assists clients with administrative and regulatory actions before the Department of Commerce, International Trade Commission and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and defends clients in appeals before the Court of International Trade, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, NAFTA panels and the World Trade Organization. In addition to her body of U.S. experience, Nithya is also well-versed in international trade issues in China and India.

Photo of Isabella Peek Isabella Peek

A love for international law drew Isabella to Georgetown Law and ultimately to Husch Blackwell.

Isabella’s early career experience working across the United States (D.C., Chicago, Reno, Omaha, Carson City), and experience studying abroad in England and Italy, solidified her ambition to work

A love for international law drew Isabella to Georgetown Law and ultimately to Husch Blackwell.

Isabella’s early career experience working across the United States (D.C., Chicago, Reno, Omaha, Carson City), and experience studying abroad in England and Italy, solidified her ambition to work with clients worldwide. Her passion for international issues is what first drew her to Georgetown Law School, and it later made Husch Blackwell a logical next career step.

Isabella’s skill and ambition made her a formidable competitor on the equestrian team in college, giving her the opportunity to build a high level of self-discipline and contribute to the success of a team. Her time management abilities helped Isabella perform at a high level both academically and as an equestrian. It’s that kind of accomplishment and organization that make her such an effective partner for clients and businesses around the globe.