Trade Cases

AIIS Sees Grounds for Appeal in CIT Ruling
Written by Sandy Williams
March 26, 2019
The decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade to deny the American Institute for International Steel’s motion for summary judgment on its constitutional challenge to Section 232 has not deterred AIIS from further action.
Said AIIS President Richard Chriss: “We are heartened that the Court of International Trade recognized that Section 232, in the court’s words, ‘seem[s] to invite the President to regulate commerce by way of means reserved for Congress.’ Unfortunately, the court also found that a 1976 Supreme Court decision foreclosed closer review of the merits of our constitutional claim by the CIT itself. But we remain convinced that, as one of the judges wrote today in a separate opinion, ‘it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the statute has permitted the transfer of power to the President in violation of the separation of powers.’ We are appealing immediately in order to continue making that argument.”
The American Iron and Steel Institute, which opposed the action by AIIS, applauded the court’s decision to uphold the legality of the Section 232 trade remedy.
Said AISI President and CEO Thomas Gibson: “Today, the CIT rightly affirmed our strong belief that the constitutional challenge to the Section 232 statute was and is without merit. This lawsuit was theatre by the importers, designed to divert from the real issue, which is that unfairly traded foreign imports had a disastrous impact on the steel industry, creating a real threat to our national and economic security. The president’s bold trade actions have now helped the industry gain some momentum, and today’s CIT decision builds on that momentum.
“We have consistently maintained that Congress acted within its constitutional authority when it authorized the president to take action to adjust imports, when the Secretary of Commerce has determined that such imports threaten to impair the national security. We are pleased that the CIT has agreed,” Gibson said.

Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases

Leibowitz: With ‘reciprocal’ tariffs struck down again in court, what happens next?
President Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Policy Act (IEEPA) were struck down again, this time on Aug. 29 by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The legal and policy mess continues, with the next stop being the US Supreme Court.

Market unfazed by US circuit court’s IEEPA decision
Repealing any reciprocal tariffs placed by President Donald Trump on US imports of direct reduced iron (DRI), iron ore, hot-briquetted iron (HBI), and pig iron would have only a nominal impact on the US steel market, market participants said.

ITC votes to keep HR duties after sunset review
The US government determined this week that hot-rolled steel imports from a handful of countries continue to threaten the domestic steel industry.

Steel Summit: Zekelman advocates for ‘Fortress North America’
Barry Zekelman has a unique vantage point from which to view today’s trade landscape. A Canadian national who owns operations in both the US and Canada, he has also had dialogue with both Canadian and American administrations.

Steel Summit: Execs urge clarity on trade/tariff policy, want stronger USMCA
Tariff policy dominated the discussion of the SMU Steel Summit trade panel on Tuesday afternoon. The message was clear: uncertainty is rattling the steel supply chain.