Possible Deadline for Section 301 Refund Claims Approaches, but Lawyers Mixed on Date

Importers that want to benefit from a lawsuit challenging list 3 and list 4A Section 301 tariffs on goods from China may face a tight deadline for filing their own cases at the Court of International Trade, law firms said in recent days. “This lawsuit, if successful, could result in the refund of all Section 301 tariffs levied on List 3 and List 4A goods from China,” the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America said in an emailed alert. “However, importers must file their own independent claims to preserve their potential refunds by Friday, Sept. 18.”

The NCBFAA alert was similar to one issued earlier in the day on Sept. 14 by Sandler Travis, which also reported the filing deadline for importers as Sept. 18. “Importers now have a very narrow window of opportunity to join this challenge and preserve their rights to such refunds by filing their own timely complaint,” Sandler Travis said. Sidley Austin customs lawyer Ted Murphy, on the other hand, had the filing deadline at no later than Sept. 20 in his own blog post, saying the deadline is two years from the original imposition of List 3 tariffs on Sept. 21, 2018.

And Neville Peterson said that whether there is a deadline at all in the coming days is “debatable” in its own blog post. Instead, the deadline for filing cases is two years from the date the tariffs were assessed, rather than the date they took effect, it said. “In our judgment, an importer could also raise a claim for refunds of Section 301 duties by filing a protest against the assessment of such duties in liquidation of an entry,” Neville Peterson said. “If a court holds the Section 301 impositions unlawful, we would expect Customs to grant the protests and refund duties.”

“As a general rule, importers should file their actions sooner rather than later,” Neville Peterson’s blog post said.

The lawsuit, filed Sept. 10 by HTMX Industries (see 2009110005), argues the List 3 tariffs are untimely and are not tied to the original reasoning for the Section 301 action. “We have reviewed the Complaint and believe its contentions have merit. While no one can predict how a court will rule, a favorable decision in this case could pave the way for the plaintiff to receive refunds of List 3 and List 4 A tariffs imposed on its products,” Neville Peterson said.

Murphy sounded more skeptical. “While the case may be a long-shot, you can never say never,” he said.