CIT Dismisses Suit Against Section 232 Duties on 'Derivatives' After CAFC Ruling

The Court of International Trade in a July 13 opinion dismissed a lawsuit from PrimeSource Building Products against President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 national security tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products pursuant to the mandate issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The appellate court ruled that Trump legally imposed the tariffs beyond procedural time limits given that the duties fit under the commerce secretary's original plan of action for the Section 232 duties (see 2302070030). The decision relied heavily on the Federal Circuit's previous opinion in Transpacific v. U.S., in which the court first laid out this line of statutory interpretation. PrimeSource unsuccessfully fought for a stay of the mandate pending its decision to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the U.S.

In the order, the trade court dismissed the claims against the government "without prejudice" and ordered that the entries affected by the case should be liquidated with the Section 232 duties. PrimeSource has yet to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. PrimeSource had no comment on the opinion. The court also dismissed the case arguing the same points filed by Oman Fasteners and Huttig Building Products.

(PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Slip Op. 23-101, CIT #20-00032, dated 07/13/23; Judges: Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker, Timothy Stanceu; Attorneys: Jeffrey Grimson of Mowry & Grimson for plaintiff PrimeSource; Stephen Tosini for defendant U.S. government)

Plaintiffs in two separate lawsuits against the tariff expansion moved for a continuation of the trade court's stay order until 30 days after a final conclusion in the lead PrimeSource case. Importers J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. said that the stay ordered in their cases should be extended until the PrimeSource case is finally concluded, either through a Supreme Court decision, refusal by the high court to take up the case or until the 90-day window to appeal lapses. The importers said that the decision to appeal "is being considered by the parties" and that all parties consented to the motion to extend he stay (J. Conrad Ltd v. United States, CIT # 20-00052) (Metropolitan Staple Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00053)