The U.S. Court of International Trade is deluged with hundreds of lawsuits that closely model a Sept. 10 challenge from Akin Gump and flooring importer HMTX Industries that seeks to force refunds of Section 301 tariffs paid on List 3 and 4A goods (see 2009110041). Such a torrent of filings is rare but not unheard of at the CIT, said lawyers involved in and following the litigation. The most obvious example was the yearslong litigation over the harbor maintenance tax (HMT), when exporters challenged the lawfulness of the fees at the CIT, they said.
Whether the deadline has passed for court challenges to lists 3 and 4 of Section 301 tariffs of goods from China continues to be in question, lawyers following the case have said. While some have pegged the deadline to Sept. 21 based on a two-year statute of limitations from when the List 3 tariffs were published in the Federal Register (see 2009160056), other factors remain in play. Filing sooner rather than later is seen as preferable, the lawyers said.
The U.S. Court of International Trade should “set aside” the List 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports as “ultra vires” (“beyond the powers”) of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and order the duties refunded to U.S. importers, said tech companies Dana Innovations, Foster Electric, GN Audio, Scosche Industries and Sharp Electronics in five virtually identical complaints (in Pacer). They were among hundreds filed Thursday and Friday accusing USTR of overstepping Trade Act authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act. The suits attempt to seize on a potential tariff refund opportunity, if floor-tiling plaintiffs prevail in their case (see 2009110041). The complaints are “timely,” said the dozens of them we studied, under CIT’s residual jurisdiction provision, coming before Monday’s two-year anniversary of USTR’s List 3 Federal Register notice. Though the HMTX case “may be a long-shot, you can never say never,” blogged trade expert Ted Murphy with Sidley Austin. “If you want to preserve your right to a refund, in case the flooring companies’ action is successful, you need to put a case on file at the CIT.” Scosche suffered “an actual, imminent injury that is fairly traceable to the implementation, administration, and enforcement of List 3 and/or List 4,” said the car audio supplier. The harms “can be redressed by a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction” ruling USTR’s actions unlawful under the Trade Act and “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA, said Scosche. Akin Gump filed the original suit for HMTX using as a template the complaint it drafted for CTA two years ago. Other lawyers modeled their actions after that. USTR didn't comment.
The U.S. Court of International Trade should “set aside” the List 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports as “ultra vires” (“beyond the powers”) of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and order the duties refunded to U.S. importers, said tech companies Dana Innovations, Foster Electric, GN Audio, Scosche Industries and Sharp Electronics in five virtually identical complaints (in Pacer). They were among hundreds filed Thursday and Friday accusing USTR of overstepping Trade Act authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act. The suits attempt to seize on a potential tariff refund opportunity, if floor-tiling plaintiffs prevail in their case (see 2009110041). The complaints are “timely,” said the dozens of them we studied, under CIT’s residual jurisdiction provision, coming before Monday’s two-year anniversary of USTR’s List 3 Federal Register notice. Though the HMTX case “may be a long-shot, you can never say never,” blogged trade expert Ted Murphy with Sidley Austin. “If you want to preserve your right to a refund, in case the flooring companies’ action is successful, you need to put a case on file at the CIT.” Scosche suffered “an actual, imminent injury that is fairly traceable to the implementation, administration, and enforcement of List 3 and/or List 4,” said the car audio supplier. The harms “can be redressed by a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction” ruling USTR’s actions unlawful under the Trade Act and “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA, said Scosche. Akin Gump filed the original suit for HMTX using as a template the complaint it drafted for CTA two years ago. Other lawyers modeled their actions after that. USTR didn't comment.
The Court of International Trade is deluged with hundreds of lawsuits that closely model a challenge from Akin Gump and HMTX Industries that seeks to force refunds of Section 301 tariffs paid on lists 3 and 4 goods from China (see 2009110005). Such a torrent of filings is rare but not unheard of at the CIT, lawyers involved with and following the litigation said. The most obvious example was the yearslong litigation over the harbor maintenance tax (HMT), they said.
The U.S. Court of International Trade should “set aside” the List 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports as “ultra vires” (“beyond the powers”) of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and order the duties refunded to U.S. importers, said tech companies Dana Innovations, Foster Electric, GN Audio, Scosche Industries and Sharp Electronics in five virtually identical complaints (in Pacer). They were among hundreds filed Thursday and Friday accusing USTR of overstepping Trade Act authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act safeguarding transparent rulemakings.
Importers that want to benefit from a lawsuit challenging list 3 and list 4A Section 301 tariffs on goods from China may face a tight deadline for filing their own cases at the Court of International Trade, law firms said in recent days. “This lawsuit, if successful, could result in the refund of all Section 301 tariffs levied on List 3 and List 4A goods from China,” the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America said in an emailed alert. “However, importers must file their own independent claims to preserve their potential refunds by Friday, Sept. 18.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 7-13:
As fallout from the annulment of Privacy Shield continues, industry and regulators in the U.S. and EU are struggling to decide how to maintain trans-Atlantic personal data flows, they said. The European Commission plans to launch an “adoption process” for new data transfer mechanisms in “the coming weeks” and hopes to finalize it by the end of the year, European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders said Thursday, noting there won't be any "quick fix."
As fallout from the annulment of Privacy Shield continues, industry and regulators in the U.S. and EU are struggling to decide how to maintain trans-Atlantic personal data flows, they said. The European Commission plans to launch an “adoption process” for new data transfer mechanisms in “the coming weeks” and hopes to finalize it by the end of the year, European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders said Thursday, noting there won't be any "quick fix."