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.
The trade provisions of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, the House's answer to the Senate U.S. Innovation and Opportunity Act, proposes some dramatic changes to antidumping and countervailing laws. The ADD/CVD section draws on a bipartisan bill from the Senate led by Ohio's two senators, but co-sponsored by Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind. Young will be a major player on the conference committee, so that suggests that the ADD/CVD changes could well end up in the final package.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he will bring the massive America COMPETES bill up for a vote soon. While it may not need to attract any Republican votes to pass there, a bipartisan compromise will be necessary in conference. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., said that the Senate's U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) was not adequate, aside from the issue that revenue measures, such as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, must start in the House. "This legislation is the boldest, best option we have to stand up to China’s harmful actions and support American workers, and I look forward to discussing these proposals further during our conference on the package with the Senate," he said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 17-23:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department violated the law when it found antidumping duty respondent Papierfabrik August Kohler's Blue4est developer-free paper to be within the scope of the AD duty order on thermal paper from Germany, the respondent told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 complaint. Commerce, in its preliminary determination, found the Blue4est paper to be outside of the scope of the order but changed its decision in the final results. This decision wasn't based on a change in evidence but rather a "conclusory decision to ignore the limited scope of the term 'thermal paper' as defined in the petition," the respondent said (Koehler Paper SE v. U.S., CIT #21-00633).
Ericsson seeks a Section 337 import ban on Apple phones and tablets that allegedly infringe its patents for wireless technologies, as well as smartwatches, smart speakers and digital media players. In three separate complaints filed with the International Trade Commission Jan. 18, Ericsson says several models of iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, HomePads and Apple TVs infringe on 12 of its patents. Ericsson seeks a permanent limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Apple. Comments in all three cases are due to the ITC by Feb. 1.