Two “pertinent and significant” decisions at the U.S. Court of International Trade support the arguments of Section 301 test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its 1974 Trade Act modification authority by imposing the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and that it violated protections in the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act against sloppy rulemakings, said Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco in a notice of supplemental authorities relevant to the Section 301 litigation, posted Monday in docket 1:21-cv-52. Both decisions were handed down after Akin Gump filed its final written brief in the Section 301 case on Nov. 15 (see 2111160003). In Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., decided Nov. 16, the court decided President Donald Trump “acted outside of his delegated authority” when he relied on a modification provision in Section 204 of the Trade Act to increase “safeguard tariffs” to protect the domestic solar panel industry against foreign imports, said Akin Gump. For the purposes of HMTX-Jasco, the court in SEIA said “reading the modification provision as a whole confirms” that Section 307 of the Trade Act “permits only reductions, not increases, in tariff actions,” as HMTX and Jasco argued, it said. The court’s opinion in Invenergy Renewables LLC v. U.S., decided Nov. 17, “likewise supports” the Section 301 plaintiffs’ arguments on APA violations when it vacated a USTR rule because the agency didn’t adequately address the significant comments “raised by opponents of the rule USTR adopted,” said Akin Gump. Oral argument in the Section 301 test case is scheduled for Feb. 1.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Borusan Mannesmann and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline, plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to apply Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions to their 19 entries, filed a notice of supplemental authority citing CBP rulings on classification of steel goods under Section 232 and Presidential Proclamation 9705 on the Section 232 tariffs to further support their arguments. The Department of Justice has moved to dismiss the case since the entries are unliquidated, precluding the Court of International Trade from having judicial review over the entries and the resulting tariff exclusion claims (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00186).
Two “pertinent and significant” decisions at the Court of International Trade support the arguments of Section 301 test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its Trade Act of 1974 modification authority by imposing the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and that it violated protections in the Administrative Procedure Act against sloppy rulemakings, Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco said in a notice of supplemental authorities relevant to the Section 301 litigation. Both decisions were handed down after Akin Gump filed its final written brief in the Section 301 case on Nov. 15 (see 2111160010).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP failed to require that a company accused of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties provide adequate public summaries of its confidential information, and the agency also failed to properly review the administrative record, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee (AHSTEC) told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 reply to briefs submitted by the Justice Department and defendant-intervenors MSeafood Corp. and Minh Phu Seafood (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).
The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shouldn't strike down President Donald Trump's extension of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto "derivative" products made beyond procedural deadlines since the tariffs had a positive impact on the U.S. industry, The American Steel Nail Coalition said in Jan. 10 proposed amicus brief. The coalition asked the court for leave to file the amicus brief in a bid to broaden the defense of the president's tariff action. The proposed amicus further said that this issue has already been decided following the Federal Circuit's decision in the key case Transpacific Steel v. U.S. (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2066).
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
The Court of International Trade granted CBP's voluntary motion for a remand in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation over magnesia alumina carbon bricks, in which Fedmet Resources was found to have skirted the order on magnesia carbon bricks from China. CBP requested the voluntary remand, with the consent of Fedmet, to go over key issues raised by the plaintiff, including scope-related and due process arguments (see 2201060035). CBP said it would review the administrative record and potentially provide public versions of certain confidential documents discussed in Fedmet's briefs, possibly alleviating one of the plaintiff's due process concerns by also giving it a chance to provide rebuttal information (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).
CBP wants the Court of International Trade to grant its voluntary remand request to reconsider its final determination in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case. The U.S. said the remand would allow CBP to consider the issues raised by plaintiff Fedmet Resources, including scope-related and due process arguments. Fedmet signed off on the remand request while the defendant-intervenor Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee didn't directly oppose it.