Court of International Trade

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to initiate a fact-finding investigation into sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to U.S. agriculture exports.

The Supreme Court this week declined to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the Section 232 statute, sending the challenge to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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.