Trade Cases

Cumbersome Product Exclusion Process Prompts Call for Relief from House Members

Written by Tim Triplett

May 10, 2018

In a bipartisan letter to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Monday, 39 members of the House argued that the process for reviewing Section 232 tariff exclusion requests is moving far too slowly. They urged Commerce to streamline the process and provide certainty and relief to the thousands of small businesses impacted by the tariffs.

Commerce announced the exclusion process on March 18 and since then has accepted thousands of applications. However, as of May 4, only 1,572 steel applications had been posted for public comment. It is clear more changes are needed, stated the House members, proposing a 10-point plan, paraphrased below:

  1. Provide relief to those experiencing undue delays by extending relief retroactive to the date of submission or the date the application was considered complete;
  2. Allow exclusions covering ranges of certain dimensions with the same Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code in order to clear up misunderstandings over the form, which contains confusing and contradictory requests.
  3. Allow trade associations to apply for exclusions for an industry to save manufacturers the time and money spent filing and the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) the time spent reviewing duplicative applications;
  4. Take measures to protect sensitive information and trade secrets by excluding unnecessary application requirements such as metallurgical composition;
  5. Provide timely information to companies requesting exclusions, including status and anticipated wait time;
  6. Publish a “FAQ” page clarifying the exclusion request process;
  7. Incorporate the grandfathering of existing contracts in evaluating exclusion applications to avoid undue disruption to the operations of U.S. companies that are already relying on qualified suppliers of needed inputs;
  8. Regularly review the impact of tariffs on the economy and downstream users and implement a plan to sunset them if they prove to have a significant negative impact;
  9. Consider the needs of U.S. manufacturers for custom-made and other specialized steel and aluminum inputs, many of which are not available from domestic producers;
  10. And authorize all companies granted product exclusions to import tariff-free from any source country unless it is proven to be unfairly traded, given that the basis of the exclusion request is that the U.S. company cannot source the product domestically.

Tim Triplett

Read more from Tim Triplett

Latest in Trade Cases

Leibowitz: The consequences of a new barrage of trade cases on coated steel

Domestic steel producers and the United Steelworkers (USW) union filed a barrage of trade cases last week. This is hardly news. Ever since the Commerce Department ruled that Vietnam is still treated as a nonmarket economy (NME) for antidumping purposes, many in the business expected new cases on the product that Vietnam excels at—“corrosion-resistant steel.” Nor is it a surprise that these cases roped in nine countries in addition to Vietnam: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, South Africa, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. All these countries rank in the top ten exporters of corrosion-resistant steel to the United States. These petitions are a broadside against coated flat-rolled steel imports.

US mills file sprawling trade case against coated imports from 10 nations

US mills have filed or soon will file a sprawling trade petition against imports of coated flat-rolled steel from 10 countries. The petition seeks anti-dumping margins against Canada, Mexico, Brazil, the Netherlands, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Taiwan, Australia, and South Africa. It also seeks countervailing duty margins against Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Vietnam. That’s according documents dated Sept. 5 and addressed to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and International Trade Commission (ITC) Secretary Lisa Barton.

Steel Summit 2024: Trade issues abound ahead of election

Trade is always front and center in an election year. And 2024 is no different. There is no shortage of issues, with questions like the sale of U.S. Steel to Japan’s Nippon Steel, potential cracks in the USMCA, and Chinese overcapacity dominating the headlines. But how do you distinguish between issues that might just last until November, and what are the crucial questions that could affect your business for years to come?