<p>The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge by steel importers, including Transpacific Steel LLC, Jordan International Company, Turkish steel producer Borusan Mannesmann and its US subsidiary, challenge of a lower court's ruling in former President Mr Donald Trump's 2018 decision to increase tariffs on steel imports from Turkey on national security grounds. At issue is a president's authority under a federal law called the Trade Expansion Act, which lets a President set tariffs for the purpose of protecting national security.</p><p>The challengers sued in January 2019, leading the US Court of International Trade to rule in their favor the following year. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trade court's decision in 2021, prompting the companies to appeal to the Supreme Court. The challengers pointed to a provision of the law that establishes a window of 90 days for a president to impose a tariff after receiving a report from the US commerce secretary. In 2018, such a report was submitted in January and Trump announced the initial 25% tariff in March, within the 90-day window. But, the challengers said, his decision to increase the tariff to 50% in August 2018 fell outside that window and was unlawful.</p><p>Mr Trump increased what had been a 25% tariff to 50%, which the steel companies have argued exceeded his authority. They had sought repayment from the US government of the USD 54 million they paid collectively in duties. Mr Trump lowered the tariff back to 25% in May 2019. The Biden administration, which took over the case and defended Trump's actions, had argued that the later decision was legal because the law allows for a president to modify a tariffs decision outside the 90-day period.</p>
<p>The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge by steel importers, including Transpacific Steel LLC, Jordan International Company, Turkish steel producer Borusan Mannesmann and its US subsidiary, challenge of a lower court's ruling in former President Mr Donald Trump's 2018 decision to increase tariffs on steel imports from Turkey on national security grounds. At issue is a president's authority under a federal law called the Trade Expansion Act, which lets a President set tariffs for the purpose of protecting national security.</p><p>The challengers sued in January 2019, leading the US Court of International Trade to rule in their favor the following year. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trade court's decision in 2021, prompting the companies to appeal to the Supreme Court. The challengers pointed to a provision of the law that establishes a window of 90 days for a president to impose a tariff after receiving a report from the US commerce secretary. In 2018, such a report was submitted in January and Trump announced the initial 25% tariff in March, within the 90-day window. But, the challengers said, his decision to increase the tariff to 50% in August 2018 fell outside that window and was unlawful.</p><p>Mr Trump increased what had been a 25% tariff to 50%, which the steel companies have argued exceeded his authority. They had sought repayment from the US government of the USD 54 million they paid collectively in duties. Mr Trump lowered the tariff back to 25% in May 2019. The Biden administration, which took over the case and defended Trump's actions, had argued that the later decision was legal because the law allows for a president to modify a tariffs decision outside the 90-day period.</p>
