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).
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb.1-7:
The White House announced its withdrawals of some nominations left over from the Trump administration. Those include the Jan. 3 nomination of Joseph Barloon, former general counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, for a judge's seat on the Court of International Trade. He was first nominated in October 2020, then renominated because all nominations in front of the Senate expired with the seating of the new Congress in January. Also withdrawn was the Jan. 6 nomination of William Kimmitt, a former counselor to the USTR, to fill a vacancy on the International Trade Commission. He was first nominated in December 2020.
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.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 4 rejected a broad challenge to Section 232 tariffs on steel. Universal Steel Products, joined by several other importers, had challenged the Commerce Department report upon which all Section 232 steel tariffs were based, as well as President Donald Trump’s failure to set an expiration date for the tariff action, among other things. But the trade court found in favor of the government, holding the report was not a final action and could not be challenged, and that the president’s edict that the tariffs remain in effect so long as national security is threatened satisfied Section 232’s requirement that he set a “duration” for the tariffs.
The Commerce Department did not provide enough assistance to three exporters of Indian shrimp as required by law during antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 3 decision. During a review of frozen warmwater shrimp from India, Indian exporters Calcutta Seafoods, Bay Seafood and Elque & Co. were not granted sufficient help after requesting it from the Commerce, CIT said, ordering Commerce to reconsider the antidumping rates it placed on the three companies' shrimp imports, with specific instructions to reopen the administrative review to further help the importers provide adequate information for the review.
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.