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 expert John Brew of Crowell & Moring told a Sports & Fitness Industry Association webinar Tuesday.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 18-24:
CBP published notices in the Customs Bulletin revoking or modifying numerous rulings in 2020. These ruling revocations and modifications also apply to “any treatment previously accorded by CBP to substantially identical transactions.” When revoking or modifying a ruling, CBP is required by 19 USC 1625(c) to publish notice of the proposed action, and allow a period—generally one month—for comment before finalizing the action. An importer’s failure to advise CBP of “substantially identical transactions” or of a ruling not identified by CBP in these notices “may raise issues of reasonable care on the part of the importer or its agents for importations of merchandise subsequent to the effective date of this notice.” Rulings CBP revoked or modified in 2020 are as follows:
A Texas federal court on Jan. 21 dismissed a $6 million legal malpractice suit brought against two trade lawyers at Steptoe & Johnson, holding it lacked jurisdiction over the case. Thomas Trendl and Gregory McCue had been accused by Allied Fitting of failing to advise it to file protests to maintain its eligibility for refunds on its steel imports (see 2010140049), but Southern Texas U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Hoyt ruled that the suit covered activities in Washington, not Texas.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 11-17:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 4-10:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Jan. 4-8 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
In another round of investigations designed to address the complaint that antidumping and countervailing duty cases aren't effective in the matter of imported produce that only affects one region, the International Trade Commission announced Jan. 8 that it is opening investigations of the effect on imported cucumbers and squash “with a particular focus on production and competitiveness of such products grown in the Southeastern United States.” The ITC will track trends in trade in these products, monthly price trends, and the prices of domestically grown and imported squash and cucumbers from 2015 to 2020. It will hold a public hearing on April 8 by videoconference, with information on how to participate to be posted on the ITC website later, but before March 11. Requests to appear at the hearing, which can be filed in the Electronic Document Information System, must be filed by 5:15 p.m. on March 25. The ITC report will be sent to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative by Dec. 7, 2021.
The procedural stalemate in Section 301 lawsuits inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade is traceable to Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu and his staff “really looking at everything very carefully,” Grunfeld Desiderio's Ned Marshak told us Thursday. His firm has filed about 800 of the 3,700 complaints, including its first case Wednesday (in Pacer) establishing two-year timeliness based on its client’s 2019 import liquidation. The complaints seek to vacate the List 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get duties refunded. Most actions based timeliness within the two-year statute of limitations dating to when List 3 was in the Federal Register or when the tariffs took effect Sept. 24, 2018. Fewer based the two-year window dating to List 3 first payments. “At some point, the logjam is going to break,” said Marshak. As cases trickle in at about one a day, no case has been assigned to a judge, and there's no resolution about case management procedures, including which actions will be the designated test cases. Stanceu’s chambers didn’t respond to our questions. The CIT has “never seen anything like this before, and my sense is, they want to get it right,” said Marshak. “They want to look at all the complaints, because not all the complaints are the same.” Grunfeld Desiderio is advising clients “it’s not too late to file,” said Marshak. “There’s a fairly decent chance that you’re not totally out if you file now.” Establishing timeliness based on date of liquidation “is your last hope, and it’s not crazy,” he said. Marshak firmly believes “the litigation stays the same” under the Biden administration, he said. He doesn’t rule out plaintiffs approaching DOJ about possible settlements. The bigger question is what the new administration will do about Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, he said: “In my mind, this is not top priority. There are so many more important issues.”
Deny the patent infringement investigation SkyBell and EyeTalk365 seek on video doorbells and IP cameras from Vivint, SimpliSafe and Arlo Technologies because the seven communications and monitoring systems patents are “invalid,” commented SimpliSafe and Arlo (login required) in International Trade Commission docket 337-3517. Tuesday was the deadline for comments. Two of the three proposed respondents argued for the case to be thrown out or decided expeditiously. No Vivint filing was posted Wednesday. The complainants didn’t respond to questions.