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: Harris, Trump don’t talk much about steel and trade – because they (mostly) agree
By most accounts, the issues that are most important for voters in this election are the economy, immigration, and abortion. International trade policy plays a key role in at least two of those three (the economy and immigration). Both presidential candidates recognize that trade and tariffs are an important focus. And “America first” is a rallying point for both candidates.
Commerce launches investigation into imports of coated flat-rolled steel
On Thursday, the Department of Commerce announced it would initiate investigations into coated steel imports from ten countries.
Op-Ed: Despite misclassification games, import data supports surge of Mexican conduit
Barry Zekelman, chairman and CEO of Zekelman Industries, says the import data unquestionably supports the fact that imports of Mexican conduit have been surging into the US market.
Leibowitz: The Mexican steel import “surge”—and what to do about it
US presidential campaigns frequently sport an “air of unreality.” No more so than the 2024 campaign, where superlatives fly around like mosquitos. Steel trade has been a feature of political discourse for at least half a century now. Just last week, it proceeded to a new level of “unreality.” Four senators - Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) - wrote a “bipartisan” letter attacking Mexican exports of steel to the United States. They framed it as a “surge” in US steel imports from Mexico. To address this “surge,” the Senators urge the imposition of 25% tariffs on all steel imports from Mexico.
CRU: Steel trade protectionism is on the rise
Continued highly competitive steel exports from China, amid weakening global demand, have triggered a wave of trade protectionism across major markets.