DOJ filed a motion with the U.S. Court of International Trade to dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” HMTX-Jasco can’t establish that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded “statutory authority” under the Trade Act when it ratcheted up the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, said the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52 (in Pacer). USTR implementation of the duties in response to China’s “increasingly aggressive and discriminatory trade practices” was “wholly discretionary and thus non-justiciable” under the Trade Act, said DOJ. China’s refusal to “cease its unlawful practices,” and instead pressure the U.S. to drop its Section 301 tariffs by adopting retaliatory measures, “revealed” that the “initial action” imposing the Lists 1 and 2 duties was “insufficient,” it said. Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX-Jasco declined comment Tuesday. Their Sept. 21 HMTX-Jasco complaint argued that the Trade Act doesn’t authorize the defendants “to litigate a vast trade war for however long, and by whatever means, they choose.”
The Court of International Trade should dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation because the companies can’t establish that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded its authority, the Department of Justice said in a June 1 motion. The agency didn't overstep the 1974 Trade Act when it ratcheted up the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52 said.
The Department of Justice motioned the Court of International Trade late June 1 to dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” HMTX-Jasco can’t establish that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded its “statutory authority” under the 1974 Trade Act when it ratcheted up the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “as they were not arbitrary and capricious,” the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52 said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Steel exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. agreed to the Commerce Department's remand results dropping the cost-based particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test for imports of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, according to May 28 comments filed in the Court of International Trade. The Department of Justice also signed off on the remand results, finding that although Commerce filed the results under respectful protest, continuing to find a PMS in Thailand, the agency complied with court orders by scrapping the PMS adjustment (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00208).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department acted within its authority when it decided not to include the views of countertop fabricators in its industry support determination before beginning antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from India, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed May 26 responding to an importer’s motion for judgment in the case.
A trailer with auto parts and tools exported to Canada to support Porsche race teams and then returned by Porsche does not qualify for duty-free treatment as “tools of the trade” under subheading 9801.00.05 because the tools were never declared to CBP, and the parts don’t qualify as tools, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed May 26 responding to Porsche’s motion for judgment in the case (see 2104270030).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 27 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: