The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 5-11:
Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories for March 29-April 2 in case you missed them. You can find any article by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 29 - April 4:
ViewSonic is the latest tech importer to join the massive Section 301 litigation seeking to get the U.S. Court of International Trade to declare the List 3 and 4A Chinese tariffs unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act and 1946 Administrative Procedure Act and get the paid duties refunded. ViewSonic also is among the growing list of complainants arguing the tariffs violate constitutional protections on federal revenue collection and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. The ViewSonic action is unusual for its use of four fallback claims of timeliness on the filing of Thursday's complaint (in Pacer), all tied to the two-year anniversaries of different Customs and Border Protection liquidation dates on PC monitor import entries. Court rules require plaintiffs to file their cases within two years after "the cause of action first accrues."
The Court of International Trade found that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding Section 232 tariffs to steel and aluminum “derivatives,” in an April 5 decision granting refunds to steel nail importer PrimeSource Building Products. Judges Timothy Stanceu and Jennifer Choe-Groves, as part of a three-judge panel, struck down the tariff expansion, ruling that the president exceeded his authority to impose tariffs when he elected to extend them to derivative products. Judge M. Miller Baker, the remaining judge on the panel, dissented from the opinion.
Few surprises emerged in the latest procedural order Wednesday, in which the three-judge panel presiding over the massive Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade order dispensed with most of the last remaining case management housekeeping items (see 2103310062). The order enables the true litigation to get started, after months of delay. Importers are suing to vacate the List 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings on Chinese imports and get the paid duties refunded, alleging violations of the 1974 Trade Act and 1946 Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The three-judge panel in the Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade granted Akin Gump’s March 19 "coordinated proposal" designating the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint as the sole sample case (see 2103220035), said a procedural order (in Pacer) Wednesday. Judges also stayed the roughly 3,700 other cases and approved seating a 15-member plaintiffs steering committee, also as Akin Gump proposed. The panel ordered the steering committee and DOJ to confer on a joint status report due April 12 that will include a proposed briefing schedule and list “any additional issues requiring early case management intervention,” plus a “joint proposal for addressing any such issues to the extent possible,” it said. If the steering committee and DOJ “are unable to agree on a proposal, the status report should identify the position of each side and the basis for any disagreement,” it said. The two sides also are ordered to “continue their consultations” on the thorny issue of refund relief, said the panel. The joint status report should summarize “any issues regarding relief upon which they agree and identify areas of disagreement, including the basis for such disagreement,” it said. The court won’t issue an “advisory opinion” on the issue of relief but is “clear-eyed regarding its role in managing the extensive number of Section 301 Cases and the challenges and importance of providing timely, effective, and administrable relief should Plaintiffs establish their right to such relief,” it said.
The three-judge panel in the Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade granted Akin Gump’s coordinated proposal designating the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint as the sole sample case, a procedural order said March 31. Judges also stayed the roughly 3,700 other cases and approved the seating of a 15-member plaintiffs steering committee, also as Akin Gump proposed.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 22-28:
DOJ appears to be digging in for a fight over refund relief for the thousands of Section 301 plaintiffs inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade to declare the Lists 3 and 4A Chinese tariffs unlawful. The government won’t support a stipulation in which the plaintiffs, if successful in the massive litigation, could seek refunds of all tariffs paid, said a DOJ response (in Pacer) Friday in docket 1:21-cv-52. Importers are seeking upfront government support for refunds, regardless of the imports’ liquidation status, including whether the 12-month window on protesting individual liquidations will have expired.