top of page

Reconsidering Section 232 Exclusion Requests?

Recent developments in a lawsuit challenging a decision by the U.S. Department of Commerce suggest that opportunities may exist for reconsideration of Section 232 exclusion requests and denials.


To recall what we all already know: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 19 U.S.C. § 1862, authorizes the President to undertake various actions, such as imposing tariffs and quotas on imports, in order to alleviate risks to the national security. In 2018, after a process conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the President adopted tariffs and quotas on imports of a broad range of steel and aluminum products from a broad range of countries. Further, Commerce set up a process whereby importers can apply for exclusions from the tariffs for individual steel and aluminum products, and domestic producers can oppose such applications. Thousands of exclusion applications have been submitted, some have been granted, and many have been denied due to domestic opposition. Finally, many lawsuits have been commenced in the U.S. Court of International Trade, challenging both the imposition of the Section 232 tariffs and the Department’s refusal to grant exclusions. Most of the lawsuits have failed, but a few have not.


In one pending case, Maple Leaf Marketing challenged Commerce’s denial of two exclusion requests on a number of grounds, procedural, factual, and constitutional. On June 22, a three-judge panel granted the Government’s motion to dismiss all of Maple Leaf’s allegations except one, which focused on the facts underlying Commerce’s evaluation of the exclusion request and the opposition filed by a domestic producer. Maple Leaf Marketing, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 21-77.


Facing litigation on the remaining claim, the Government, on July 20, filed a consent motion for voluntary remand to permit Commerce to reconsider its denial of Maple Leaf’s exclusion request. Its motion recognized that in another recent case, JSW Steel, Inc. v. United States, 466 F. Supp. 3d 1320, 1330 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020), the Court had found that Commerce’s denials of the exclusion requests at issue were “devoid of explanation and frustrate judicial review.” The Government also noted that the Bureau of Industry and Security (the office within Commerce that administers the Section 232 programs) had engaged in communications with individual parties in Section 232 proceedings, without preparing contemporaneous documentation of such contacts. “A remand for Commerce to reconsider the original exclusion requests and submissions will eliminate any potential disputes about the completeness of the current record.” Defendants’ Consent Motion for Voluntary Remand, Court No. 20-00125, at 4 (July 20, 2021).

Thus, on both substantive and procedural grounds, the Government justified the need for reconsideration of the denial of Maple Leaf’s exclusion application. The Court granted the motion on the same day. It set a deadline of October 18 for Commerce to file the results of its remand.

In its motion for remand, the Government noted that there are over 19,000 pending exclusion requests, and over the past three years thousands of such requests have been denied. For importers whose requests have been denied, it may be worthwhile evaluating the factual record and circumstances surrounding the denial to determine if grounds exist to challenge or seek reconsideration of Commerce’s decision. Likewise, for importers with pending exclusion requests, opportunities may exist to ensure that an adequate record is developed for Commerce’s decision and that appropriate processes are followed.

For questions regarding the Section 232 process and litigation options, please contact us at neil@neilellislaw.com.

Recent Posts

See All
Trade Law and the End of Chevron

A few weeks ago the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron , its 40-year-old precedent that had dominated the relationship between the...

 
 
 
Customs and the Constitution

Do the U.S. Constitution’s procedural protections governing the deprivation of life, liberty and property apply in the context of import...

 
 
 

Kommentare


Dieser Beitrag kann nicht mehr kommentiert werden. Bitte den Website-Eigentümer für weitere Infos kontaktieren.

© 2025 Law Office of Neil Ellis PLLC

5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Suite 440

Washington, DC 20015

Email: neil@neilellislaw.com

Telephone: 202.258.5421

Your use of this web site is subject to the following terms and conditions. By accessing this web site, you acknowledge that you have read and accept these terms and conditions.

 

Attorney Advertising  

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 

 

Disclaimers

No Legal Advice or Attorney-Client Relationship: These materials have been prepared by the Law Office of Neil Ellis PLLC (the Firm) for informational purposes and are not legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. You should not act upon this information without seeking advice from a lawyer licensed in your own state or country. Do not send us confidential information until you speak with a member of the Firm and receive  authorization to send that information to us. Providing information to the Firm (via e-mail links on this Web site or otherwise) will not create an attorney-client relationship in the absence of an express agreement by the Firm to create such a relationship, and will not prevent the Firm from representing someone else in connection with the matter in question or a related matter.

 

Links to Third-Party Resources: Third-party resources that can be accessed with hypertext links from this web site are not under the control of the Firm, and the Firm is not responsible for the contents of any of these third-party resources. The third-party hypertext links presented on this site are provided for your convenience only. The inclusion of any link on this site does not imply any recommendation, approval or endorsement of that site by the Firm.

 

Limitation of Liability: Your use of this web site is at your own risk. The materials presented on this site may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. These materials may be changed, improved, or updated without notice. The Firm is not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content of this site or for damages arising from the use or performance of this site under any circumstances.

bottom of page