Court of International Trade

The National Foreign Trade Council has thrown its support behind the international steel group seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the Section 232 statute at the Supreme Court.

Attorneys representing the Trump administration last week argued that President Trump's decision to double a tariff on Turkish steel imports was legal, saying in a push to dismiss a challenge to his authority that he did not have to obtain a new report from the Commerce Department beforehand.

The U.S. International Trade Commission, in a new report on large diameter pipe imports from China and India, draws a stark connection to Section 232 steel restrictions, stating the national security-based duties have raised domestic costs and will do little to mitigate the flow of imports from foreign countries.

A three-judge panel this week questioned the level of discretion afforded to the executive branch in Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the constitutionality of which is being challenged by an international steel group that is taking aim at steel tariffs imposed by the Trump administration earlier this year.

The Trump administration last week asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss a complaint filed by the American Institute for International Steel, which is questioning the constitutionality of the statute employed by the president to apply steep tariffs on steel imports.

The administration last week told the Court of International Trade that President Trump's application of Section 232 restrictions on steel imports was in line with congressional intent behind the statute in a filing that cited Supreme Court rulings as justification for the national security-based actions.

The U.S. Court of International Trade last week denied attempts by Nucor Corporation and Steel Dynamics, Inc., to join an investigation into the legality of President Trump's imposition of a global steel tariff on imports, arguing that allowing outside parties to step in could “unduly delay proceedings.”

NEW YORK -- A senior judge at the Court of International Trade on Thursday questioned the reviewability of the claim brought by a Swiss steel exporter and its U.S. affiliate that President Trump’s public statements linking the Section 232 steel tariffs to trade negotiations and other issues proves that national security was not Trump’s chief justification for imposing the restrictions.