United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 20-044

Before the Court in Oman Fasteners, LLC. et. al., v. United States, was the Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The Trade Court had previously found that Presidential Proclamation 9980 which imposed 25% tariffs on derivative steel products, under authority of Section 232, 19 U.S.C. 1962, was unlawful due to the action being taken after the 105 day statutory deadline for presidential action. As a result, the Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit. In August, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, which held that a similar timeliness claim to that of Oman Fasteners had no merit. Judgment was entered by the Federal Circuit for the Government. For the following reasons the Court granted the stay pending appeal.

“The party seeking a stay pending appeal has the burden of demonstrating that the stay is justified by the circumstances.” Id. at 6. The Court considered “four factors in deciding whether defendants have met that burden: (1) whether defendants have made a strong showing that they will succeed on the merits; (2) whether they will be irreparably harmed absent the stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure plaintiffs; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Id. Despite distinguishing the Federal Circuit Transpacific Case from the current case, the Court found that “the decision of the … Federal Circuit … in Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States … causes us to conclude that defendants have made a sufficiently strong showing that they will succeed on the merits on appeal.” Id. at 6-7. The Court also found that the irreparable harm factor favored the Government. The Court said the Government faced “the loss of the authority, provided for by statute and routinely exercised by Customs in every import transaction, to … reasonably … protect the revenue of the United States, without the requested stay.” Id. at 12. As such the Court ordered special bonding requirements for the plaintiffs and a suspension of liquidation of subject entries. In regards to the balance of hardship factor, the Court also found the balance fell in favor of protecting of the revenue of the U.S. Finally, the Court found that “The public interest favors allowing the government to exercise its lawful authority to protect the revenue, and potential revenue, of the United States.” As such, the stay pending appeal was granted.