Section 232 Valuation Suit May Leave Mixed-Material Claims Open
DOJ's Section 232 defense targets manufacturing-cost deductions on all-steel fasteners, leaving the reach of any ruling for mixed-material imports uncertain.
Primary lensMetals scope review
Sub-topicSection 232 metals
Evidence base9 records used
Use caseMetals scope exposure
A ruling on the Section 232 value of an all-steel fastener could leave importers of mixed-material goods with much of their valuation dispute still to argue. The Justice Department's September 16 filing in Express Fasteners v. United States makes the distinction unusually clear. The government defends full-value assessments on screws and fasteners it describes as entirely steel. The importer seeks to remove manufacturing costs from that value. Neither proposition, by itself, answers how a separate non-steel component should be valued.
The disputed imports entered in 2025, before Proclamation 11021's April 6, 2026 shift to full customs value. Current treatment also depends on later product and origin amendments, including . The case provides no new calculation instruction for today's shipments.
For an importer reviewing an earlier metal-content claim, the first question is what the proposed deduction represents. A separately identifiable component, the cost of turning steel into a finished article, and a statutory customs-value exclusion require different support. Treating them as one category can overstate how much this case will resolve. These are competing arguments in a pending case, not a new court-approved calculation method. DOJ, Express Fasteners v. United States, September 16 cross-motion, pages 5-6 and 11-14.
What the fastener importer calls non-steel value
Express Fasteners' complaint describes its steel-content declaration as the manufacturer's cost of purchasing the steel. It assigned machining, fabrication, factory overhead and the seller's profit to the balance. For ordinary customs duties, it used the transaction value of the complete screw or fastener. Its argument therefore concerns the portion of an accepted merchandise value subject to Section 232, rather than a claim that the imported article was worth only its raw material. Express Fasteners v. United States, January 27 complaint, paragraphs 18-19.
The distinction matters because the phrase steel content does not resolve which stage of production supplies its value. The importer reads it as permitting a raw-input calculation. DOJ reads the applicable tariff provisions and valuation statute as reaching the finished all-steel good, including the work that made it saleable.
There is a real textual dispute to decide. Clause 6 of White House, Proclamation 10947, June 3, 2025 limited the additional duty to steel content for Chapter 73 articles. CBP's June 3, 2025 steel reporting instructions, CSMS 65236374 provided separate reporting lines where steel-content value was lower than entered value. Neither instruction, on its face, itemized a general deduction for machining or profit. Their application to those costs is contested.
The contested memo itself separates components from processing
The CBP material filed with the complaint does more than defend a full-value calculation. For steel goods, it distinguishes articles made entirely of steel from goods with separate non-steel parts. For the latter, the Base Metals Center described subtracting the importer's cost of the finished non-steel component from the entered value. It rejected treating fabrication or machining as non-steel content and said common costs such as packaging would be apportioned across both portions. CBP Base Metals Center guidance and notices of action, filed as Express Fasteners exhibits, Document 7, pages 2-6.
That is CBP's disputed position in the record, not a judicial endorsement. But it exposes the question a supplier's cost breakdown must answer. A line labelled non-steel may describe a physical component or an accounting category. Those are different factual claims even when they produce the same declared steel value.
The following comparison identifies what belongs in the historical claim file. It does not prescribe a valuation formula.
Proposed deduction
What the record must establish
Connection to Express Fasteners
Separate non-steel component
The component, its value to the importer and the allocation of shared costs
The filed CBP guidance allows a component distinction, but the government's account of the disputed entries concerns wholly steel goods
Machining, fabrication or factory profit on an all-steel article
The legal basis for removing those costs from the Section 232 base
This is the deduction the parties directly contest
An exclusion under ordinary customs valuation law
The statutory exclusion and any required separate identification
This is a separate valuation question, not proof that manufacturing creates non-steel content
Ordinary customs-value exclusions rest on a separate statutory basis. 19 U.S.C. 1401a, transaction value and its exclusions defines transaction value, specifies additions, and identifies exclusions such as qualifying post-importation charges. It does not list foreign manufacturing costs as a general transaction-value exclusion. That statutory point supports DOJ's argument. It does not, alone, decide how the proclamation's metal-content limit interacts with the appraised value.
Classification limits how far a decision can travel
DOJ identifies the disputed fasteners under heading 7318 and Section 232 heading 9903.81.90. It contrasts the relevant Chapter 99 note with other subdivisions expressly addressing declared steel-content value. The government also says the FAQ on which the importer relies concerns derivatives outside Chapters 73 and 76, while these goods are within Chapter 73. Those are arguments about the provisions applicable to these entries. DOJ cross-motion, pages 11-14 and 19.
A decision accepting that reasoning could dispose of the all-steel claim without selecting a method for allocating value in a machine containing several materials. Importers should allow for that narrower outcome. A ruling rejecting manufacturing-cost deductions could still influence that part of a mixed-material claim. It would not necessarily settle the value of genuine non-steel components or the allocation of shared costs. A broader ruling on the proclamation or CBP's procedures could reach further.
The procedural dispute creates another limit. DOJ argues that the denied-protest action supplies an adequate remedy and contests the separate APA claims. A disposition on that ground would answer a different question from a merits ruling on deductible costs. The plaintiff's motion is available through Traverse's Express Fasteners court record, but the September filing remains an adversarial brief.
What to look for in the next filing
The Court of International Trade docket, Express Fasteners v. United States, September 16 filing sets October 21, 2026 as the deadline for the importer's reply and response. The useful question is whether that filing explains why the historical content limit requires excluding manufacturing value even where the imported good is wholly steel. A response addressing that issue would sharpen the merits dispute. It would not necessarily supply evidence for valuing a separate non-steel component.
Traverse's earlier analysis explains the entry-date division and protest framework. Within that historical claim population, the valuation worksheet sent to counsel or the broker should identify the proposed deduction and the classification provisions that govern it. Keep the supplier breakdown with the invoice, component description and filed entry lines. Those records will show which parts of an eventual holding apply to the importer's own claim.
From reading to review
Run the numbers on your lane.
The duty calculator runs the current stack for any HTS code and origin. A free account opens full tool output, AD/CVD detail, Chapter 98 processing, and available exports.