The Court of International Trade will use a “master case” to reduce the time and expense of duplicate filings in the more than 3,700 lawsuits against President Donald Trump's lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs, CIT Judge Mark Barnett said in a Feb. 10 order. Barnett also gave the government defense until March 12, 2021, to submit its first defense, barring no motions to extend time to file. These procedural steps pertain to the copious number of Section 301 cases that were assigned to a three-panel judge at CIT on Feb. 5 (see 2102050008).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb.1-7:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Feb. 1-5 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
In the first sign of life in months for importers seeking to undo the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods, the U.S. Court of International Trade assigned the massive litigation to a three-judge panel. Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves will preside over the cases, said an order (in Pacer) signed Friday by Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu. It took the court 103 pages to list the nearly 3,500 complaints filed since Sept. 10, all seeking to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and get the duties refunded.
A three-judge Court of International Trade panel will oversee all cases tackling the legality of lists 3 and 4 Section 301 China tariffs, Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu said in an order signed Feb. 5. Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves -- the three most senior active judges on the court -- were assigned to hear one of the largest mass filings in the court's history.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 4 denied a broad challenge to Section 232 tariffs on steel products (see 1912040033), finding against a group of steel importers that had challenged the initial proclamation that set the tariffs, as well as procedural steps that formed the basis for the action. One of several recent cases challenging the tariffs, this one differed in its focus on the Commerce Department report that preceded the tariffs, as well as the proclamation's failure to set an explicit expiration date. The trade court found in favor of the government on both issues, holding that the Commerce report was not a final agency action that could be challenged in court and that the law behind Section 232 does not require the president to decide a date when the tariffs will end.
Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories for Jan. 25-29 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 Jan. 25-31:
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 27 declined to dismiss a nail importer's challenge to Section 232 steel "derivatives" tariffs, but stopped short of finding in the importer's favor. In a lengthy opinion that drew an even longer dissent, two members of a three-judge CIT panel ruled against the government's motion to dismiss PrimeSource's claims that the derivatives tariffs ran afoul of the deadlines for tariff changes under Section 232, but held that more information was needed before it could render a final decision.
More than 3,500 Section 301 complaints have inundated the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the lawfulness of the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, “and there’s likely more to come,” trade lawyer John Brew of Crowell & Moring told a Sports and Fitness Industry Association webinar Jan. 26.