Akin Gump said there’s no legal precedent for its Sept. 10 complaint before the U.S. Court of International Trade in which HMTX Industries and Jasco Products allege the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its authority under the 1974 Trade Act to impose the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports (see 2009110041). The suit, plus the other roughly 3,500 nearly identical complaints filed at the CIT, seek to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A rulemakings and get the duties refunded. DOJ is expected to oppose Akin Gump's motion for a three-judge panel to manage the litigation when responses are due Oct. 21 (see 2010010043)

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 5-11:

President Donald Trump issued a proclamation Oct. 10 that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative says will end a hotly contested exemption for bifacial panels from safeguard duties on solar cells, despite a Court of International Trade injunction against its elimination that for now remains in effect (see 1912050063). The proclamation also increases the tariff applicable under the safeguard to account for bifacial panels already imported under the safeguard.

CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:​

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 28-Oct. 4:

President Donald Trump’s “many tweets” and statements from his administration are strong evidence the White House unlawfully imposed the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs to boost the U.S. Treasury and not curb the allegedly bad Chinese trade behavior documented in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s March 2018 Section 301 investigative report. So said the lawyer for two automotive components importers making the case that the tariffs are unconstitutional because only Congress has the power of taxation.

President Donald Trump’s “many tweets” and statements from his administration are strong evidence the White House unlawfully imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs to boost the U.S. Treasury and not curb the allegedly bad Chinese trade behavior documented in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s March 2018 Section 301 investigative report. So said the lawyer for two automotive components importers making the case that the tariffs are unconstitutional because only Congress has the power of taxation.

The thousands of complaints seeking to vacate the List 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and get the duties refunded (see 2009220027) warrant the U.S. Court of International Trade assigning the litigation to a three-judge panel instead of a single judge, motioned (login required) Akin Gump Wednesday on behalf of importers HMTX Industries and Jasco Products. DOJ told Akin Gump it opposes the motion and will file a response, the firm said.

The thousands of complaints seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and have the duties refunded warrant the Court of International Trade assigning the litigation to a three-judge panel instead of a single judge, Akin Gump said Sept. 30 on behalf of importers HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, in a court filing. The Department of Justice told Akin Gump it opposes the motion and will file a response, it said.

DOJ’s motion for case management procedures to navigate the thousands of Section 301 tariff complaints before the U.S. Court of International Trade (see 2009240040) was “procedurally defective” because it wasn’t served on any other plaintiffs who filed cases involving the original HMTX Industries lawsuit (see 2009110041), said an opposition (in Pacer) Monday from Paulsen Vandevert, lawyer for importers GHSP and Brose North America. The more than 3,400 complaints seek to have the Lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings vacated and the paid duties refunded. GHSP, a supplier of electromechanical systems to the automotive industry, and Brose, a distributor of mechatronic parts for motorized car seats, are in “full agreement” with DOJ that the many complaints will require case management procedures, said Vandevert. But his clients “strongly object” to designating the three “first-filed” complaints as test cases, he said. The first three complaints were filed Sept. 10 and Sept.16. Vandevert filed for GHSP (in Pacer) Sept. 18 and for Brose (in Pacer) Sept. 22. “To determine which case or cases should be designated as the lead or test cases, the Court and all counsel involved must identify the cases that best represent all of the issues raised by all plaintiffs that would support invalidating the List 3 and 4A duties and justify their refund,” said Vandevert. “At this time it cannot be known with any certainty which cases, if any, do that.” DOJ didn't respond to questions Tuesday. Virtually all the suits we examined allege the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its authority under the 1974 Trade Act when it imposed Lists 3 and 4A as retaliatory strikes against China. They also allege USTR violated the Administrative Procedure Act by running rulemakings that were sloppy and lacked transparency. Vandevert's complaints on behalf of GHSP and Brose were among the few to layer on the additional argument that Lists 3 and 4A were unlawful and unconstitutional forms of federal “revenue collection,” well beyond the "scope of actions USTR was authorized to take" under the Trade Act (see 2009230023). Only Congress has the “constitutional power” to impose taxes, said both complaints.