Trade Cases
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/media/k2/items/src/548d0cef52641cca544d1739628439c1.jpg)
Turkey Section 232 Tariff Case Could Head to Supreme Court
Written by Michael Cowden
December 2, 2021
A long-running legal fight over whether former President Donald Trump had legal authority to double Turkey’s Section 232 steel tariff to 50% might be headed to the Supreme Court.
Attorneys representing a Turkish mill and consumers of Turkish steel last month filed a request – also known as a “writ of certiorari” – asking the high court to reconsider a lower court’s decision to uphold an expansive view of presidential powers when it comes to trade issues.
They contend that the unilateral doubling of Turkey’s tariff represented a violation of the Constitution – notably of the separation of powers between the president and Congress.
Congress makes laws, and the executive branch enforces them, according to the Constitution. But Section 232 as currently interpreted hands the president “virtually unbounded power to tax and otherwise regulate imports,” the plaintiffs said in their petition.
“Section 232 gives the President carte blanche to increase the tariff rates in any amount he chooses,” they said. “These additional measures could be announced tomorrow, or in ten years, at the President’s sole discretion and without undertaking any of the procedural steps Congress mandated.”
The case won’t immediately go to the high court because the U.S. government, the defendant in the case, has until Jan. 18, 2021, to file its response to the plaintiffs petition.
The Dispute
The plaintiffs in the case are Turkish steelmaker Borusan Mannesmann and its U.S. pipe subsidiary, San Francisco-based rebar fabricator TransPacific Steel LLC, and Hamden, Conn.-based steel trader Jordan International Co. The current case stems from a complaint filed by Transpacific at the CIT on Jan. 17, 2019.
The plaintiffs want a refund for “the millions of dollars that they paid in unlawfully imposed tarrifs.” Questions of legality aside, those tariffs went into effect after Trump on Friday, Aug. 10, 2018, at 5:47 a.m. tweeted: “I have just authorized a doubling of Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum with respect to Turkey as their currency, the Turkish Lira, slides rapidly downward against our very strong Dollar! Aluminum will now be 20% and Steel 50%. Our relations with Turkey are not good at this time!”
The tweet, which caught the market by surprise, went into effect the same day thanks to a presidential proclamation that made it legally binding. And the 50% tariff on Turkish steel remained in effect until May 21, 2019, when Trump issued another proclamation that returned it back to 25% – where it has remained since.
Recall that Section 232 tariffs of 25% on imported steel and 10% on foreign aluminum initially went into effect on March 8, 2018. That move alone was a huge shock to the market. And the doubling of Turkey’s steel tariff to 50% only underscored that a U.S. president appeared to have the power to make big changes to domestic trade policy at a whim – and even via a dawn tweet.
The crux of the plaintiffs’ case is that the doubling of Section 232 tariffs on Turkish steel violated the timeline spelled out in the laws governing Section 232.
The Law
According to the text of Section 232, the president has 90 days after receiving a key report from the Commerce Secretary to decide whether imports pose a risk to U.S. national security. If the president decides that imports do pose a risk, he or she has another 15 days to act.
Former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross delivered his Section 232 report to Trump on Jan. 11, 2018 – meaning Trump had 105 days, or until late April 2018, to act. Trump’s action in August was well beyond that deadline, and so the doubling of Turkey’s tariff had no legal basis, the plaintiffs contend.
The U.S. Court of International Trade upheld that view. It said a second report – one that was never written – on why Turkish steel in particular posed a threat to national security would have been needed to justify doubling Turkey’s tariff to 50% in August.
But an appeals court – the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – disagreed and in July said Trump had acted within the bounds of presidential powers. In effect, it declined to place limits on a president’s powers to unilaterally deploy Section 232 national security tariffs and quotas.
By Michael Cowden, Michael@SteelMarketUpdate.com
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/02/SMU_MC_headshot-150x150.png)
Michael Cowden
Read more from Michael CowdenLatest in Trade Cases
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/images/Featured_News_Icons/galvanized_coil.png)
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.
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/images/Featured_News_Icons/investigate.png)
Coated trade case alleges hefty dumping margins
Domestic mills have alleged substantial dumping margins in the trade case targeting imports of corrosion-resistant steel.
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/images/Featured_News_Icons/fist.png)
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.
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/media/k2/items/src/cbd2ad03f626e665deb71b2742b25bbb.jpg)
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?
![](https://www.steelmarketupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/images/Featured_News_Icons/fist.png)
US senators urge reduction to S. Korean OCTG quota
https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/sherrod-brown-casey-fetterman-biden-administration-level-playing-field-american-octg-industry