Background
Mirror Metals, Inc. imports flat-rolled stainless steel with specialized textures and surface treatments, including #8 nondirectional finish, bright annealed finish, and #4 satin finish products. Between October 2022 and March 2024, it submitted 63 requests asking the Department of Commerce to exclude those products from the 25% steel tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
Domestic steel producers objected to the requests. Commerce relied on objections from Outokumpu Stainless USA, which generally asserted that it could produce the requested products at its Alabama facility within 55 or 60 days. Commerce concluded that at least one objector could satisfy the applicable quality, quantity, and timeliness criteria and denied all 63 requests. Mirror Metals sought judgment on the agency record, arguing that the objections did not meet Commerce’s regulatory requirements and that Commerce failed to address evidence contradicting Outokumpu’s claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of International Trade granted Mirror Metals’ motion and remanded all 63 denials. It held that Commerce acted arbitrarily and capriciously by relying on objections that did not comply with the governing regulations. Outokumpu’s generalized assertions that the requested steel was a “standard product” and that it could meet all specifications did not substantively address Mirror Metals’ evidence about such matters as polishing method, reflectivity, clarity, production location, and delivery time.
The court also held that Commerce failed to meaningfully evaluate Mirror Metals’ rebuttal evidence. Commerce sometimes stated that a subject-matter expert could not connect particular communications to the requested product, but did not explain that conclusion or why it credited Outokumpu’s statements instead. Although Commerce could reasonably discount some evidence as stale under a 90-day cutoff, it could not ignore other countervailing evidence without explanation.
Commerce must reconsider or further explain its determinations within 90 days. If it concludes that the exclusions should have been granted, it must take the steps necessary to effectuate them, including directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reliquidate affected entries as necessary, despite the later revocation of Commerce’s exclusion authority.
Key Takeaways
- A certified objection does not support denial of a Section 232 exclusion when it is conclusory, ambiguous, or fails to satisfy the regulations’ substantive requirements.
- Commerce must address material rebuttal evidence and reasonably explain why it credits an objector’s representations over contrary evidence from the requester.
- If Commerce determines on remand that the exclusions should have been granted, it must provide effective relief, potentially including reliquidation of affected entries.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Commerce’s Section 232 exclusion process required more than accepting a domestic producer’s certified assurance that it could supply a product. Objections had to address the requester’s specific evidence and product requirements, and Commerce had to connect its conclusions to the administrative record.
The remedial order is also significant because the product-exclusion process was rescinded in 2025. The court made clear that the subsequent loss of Commerce’s exclusion authority does not necessarily prevent meaningful relief for exclusion requests that should have been granted while the process remained in effect.