The massive Section 301 litigation that inundated the U.S. Court of International Trade since the first cases were filed 16 months ago enters a critical new phase Tuesday when oral argument is scheduled for 10 a.m. EST before the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. Virtually all the thousands of complaints seek to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and get the duties already paid refunded with interest on grounds that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its tariff-wielding authority under the 1974 Trade Act and violated protections in the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act (APA) against sloppy federal agency rulemakings.
The massive Section 301 litigation that has inundated the U.S. Court of International Trade since the first cases were filed 16 months ago enters a critical new phase Feb. 1 when oral argument is scheduled for 10 a.m. EST before the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. Virtually all the thousands of complaints seek to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and get the duties paid refunded with interest on grounds that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its tariff-wielding authority under the 1974 Trade Act and violated protections in the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act (APA) against sloppy federal agency rulemakings.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Meyer Corporation filed a corrected reply brief in a key case over the use of "first sale" valuation on goods from China after its initial brief was found to not be in compliance with the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's rules. The Federal Circuit said that the contact information for Meyer's lawyers didn't match the information on the individuals' entries of appearance on the docket (see 2201240043). Meyer's lead counsel is John Peterson of Neville Peterson. Meyer's resubmission purportedly fixes this error. The brief came in Meyer's appeal based on a Court of International Trade ruling that held that first sale treatment may not be applicable to non-market economy exports (see 2201190059). Meyer argued in the brief that CIT improperly applied the "dual burden of proof" when it denied the importer first sale valuation on its cookware from China (Meyer Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).
The International Trade Commission officially opened an investigation into alleged infringement of a patent held by Brita of high-performance water filters. The investigation (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1294) follows Brita's complaint filed with the ITC on Dec. 27 (see 2201030032). The complaint alleges that nine entities in the U.S., China and Germany have violated Section 337 by importing high-performance water filters into the U.S. that infringe one of Brita's patents. The ITC will consider whether to issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against the following respondents to the investigation:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Nutricia seeks a Court of International Trade judgment overturning CBP's classification of its infant and children food formulas as food preparations of heading 2106, it said in a motion for summary judgment filed Jan. 24 in the hopes of bringing to a close an over 6-year-old test case. The importer says its formulas, intended to treat a variety of diseases and disorders in infants or children, are "medical foods" classifiable as medicaments of heading 3004 and also duty-free under special tariff provisions for articles for the handicapped under subheading 9817.00.96 (Nutricia North America v. United States, CIT #16-00008).
In-person oral argument in the Section 301 cases is scheduled for Feb. 1 at 10 a.m. in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the U.S. Court of International Trade, the court confirmed in a Jan. 25 amended courthouse activities report. A previously posted report dated Jan. 24 had the Section 301 oral argument missing from the schedule. Mindful of the enormous attention the litigation has generated through the thousands of cases filed, the court said in a Nov. 12 scheduling order that it “anticipates that in-person attendance will be limited” but that a remote audio feed would be provided. All the cases seek to have the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports vacated and the paid duties refunded with interest.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
In-person oral argument in the Section 301 cases is scheduled for Tuesday at 10 a.m. in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the U.S. Court of International Trade, confirmed the court in an amended courthouse activities report Tuesday. A previously posted report dated Monday had the Section 301 oral argument missing from the schedule. Mindful of the enormous attention the litigation has generated through the thousands of cases filed, the court said in a Nov. 12 scheduling order that it “anticipates that in-person attendance will be limited,” but a remote audio feed will be provided. All the cases seek to have the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports vacated and the paid duties refunded with interest. Lawyers with active Section 301 cases told us they think the Ceremonial Courtroom was chosen for its size and historical significance, having played host to oral argument in the harbor maintenance tax case after which some of the Section 301 case management procedures were fashioned. The lawyers speculated the Ceremonial Courtroom holds more than twice the gallery of any of the other regular courtrooms, and was picked to promote better social distancing.