US upholds legality of steel tariffs, dismisses challenge

The US Court of International Trade denied a challenge to the US' 25% steel tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump in 2018, concluding that the policy does not violate Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, according to a Feb. 4 ruling.

In a joint concurring opinion, judges Gary Katzmann and Leo Gordon said the CIT ultimately did not have authority to review or overturn the tariff.

"There have been proposals put forward suggesting greater Congressional oversight, including hearings, or statutory amendments which would expand Congress's role in the implementation and review of tariffs," the judges said. "Of course, these are policy matters that fall within the province of the legislative branch; it is not the role of the court to opine about them. We do not do so now."

The tariff was challenged by a group of plaintiffs consisting of Universal Steel Products, PSK Steel, The Jordan International Company, Dayton Parts and Borusan Mannesmann Pipe US.

The plaintiffs alleged that Trump misinterpreted Section 232 by failing to base his tariff determination on a finding of an impending threat to national security.

In its response, the CIT said the president's proclamations for the tariff did appear to be based on relevant data concerning national defense requirements, domestic capacity and displacement of US products by excessive imports.

"In exercising his discretion to impose import restrictions, the president concurred with the (US Commerce Department) secretary's findings that current import levels could impair the country's national security," the CIT said in its ruling.

The plaintiffs also said the investigation leading to Trump's tariff implementation was procedurally deficient, and the tariff itself violated Section 232 by not setting definitive duration limits or following proper timing provisions. These arguments were also dismissed by the CIT.

International trade lawyer Lewis Leibowitz, who represented the plaintiffs, said the ruling was disappointing.

"It was not what we hoped for or what we expected," Leibowitz said in a statement. "We're exploring other options, including an appeal."

During a presentation at the Tampa Steel Conference Feb. 2, Leibowitz said the tariffs have harmed downstream steel producers. The trade policy should be lifted, at least temporarily, as the impact has become more pronounced amid the market conditions caused by the coronavirus pandemic, he added.

"A temporary suspension of tariffs for the duration of this emergency would be very prudent, and other countries have worked on that," he said. "They respect their downstream industries probably more than our politicians do."