It could take two to three years to resolve the massive Section 301 litigation now before the Court of International Trade, especially since it’s “highly likely” the case will be appealed by whichever side loses, David Cohen, a trade expert with Sandler Travis, said on his law firm's webinar June 15. Roughly 3,800 importers are suing the government to declare the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods unlawful and get the money refunded.
It could take two-to-three years to resolve the massive Section 301 litigation now before the U.S. Court of International Trade, especially since it’s “highly likely” the losing side will appeal the case, Sandler Travis trade expert David Cohen, told his law firm's webinar Tuesday. Roughly 3,800 importers are suing the government to declare the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods unlawful and get the money refunded.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 7-13.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from June 7-11 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade is set to hold oral arguments over a key relief question in the massive Section 301 litigation on June 17. Chief Judge Mark Barnett sent out four questions to the parties in a June 14 letter concerning the following: (1) how uncertainty over the court's authority to provide relief establishes that the plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm without this relief, (2) cases in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that CIT did not determine appropriate relief, (3) how the first question is articulated by the Supreme Court decision Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council and (4) the court's authority to enter a money judgment instead of reliquidation in the event the plaintiff's preliminary injunction prevails. The oral arguments will be held over the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure (see 2106070017).
The Commerce Department is working with a police agency in rural Texas to help investigate illegally exported goods, an unorthodox relationship that has sparked concern among industry lawyers and led to disputed seizures.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade found again that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding Section 232 tariffs to steel and aluminum “derivatives,” in a June 10 decision. Citing CIT's prior case on the topic, PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. United States (see 2104050049), Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves and Timothy Stanceu awarded refunds for tariffs paid to steel fastener importers Oman Fasteners, Huttig Building Products and Huttig Inc. In Oman Fasteners, LLC. et al. v. United States, the court ruled that the president illegally announced the tariff expansion after the 105-day deadline laid out by Section 232, but denied the plaintiff's other two claims, without prejudice, on the procedural violations of the tariff expansion. The panel's third member, Judge Miller Baker, concurred in part and dissented in part.
The Commerce Department is working with a police agency in rural Texas to help investigate illegally exported goods, an unorthodox relationship that has sparked concern among industry lawyers and led to disputed seizures.
Importers must file protests to preserve their ability to obtain refunds under exclusions from Section 301 tariffs, the Court of International Trade said in a June 11 decision. Dismissing a lawsuit from importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, Judge Miller Baker found the court did not have jurisdiction to hear their challenge since the importers did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties.