Rep. George Holding, R-N.C., and Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, asked the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to lift the 25% Section 301 tariffs on Chinese hand sanitizer, suggesting that 301 exclusions for pump parts or other imports for American hand sanitizer manufacturers is not sufficient. They said that the ad hoc sanitizer manufacturing that has sprung up does not include ingredients to make sanitizers that have a gel or foam consistency, and that a more liquid form is not as effective. “There have been various other reports of quality problems in the industry, including a surge in reports of sanitizers containing dangerous contaminants, such as methanol and 1-propanol, that can be poisonous when absorbed through the skin or ingested. The list of FDA-recalled hand sanitizers due to unsafe and potentially lethal ingredients is rapidly growing; in June there were nine recalled sanitizers, and in only two months the list has grown to 165 recalled sanitizers,” they wrote recently.
The Section 301 lawsuits represent an important check on the government's imposition of tariffs despite the recent claims of a domestic industry group, a customs lawyer told International Trade Today. An industry analyst with the Coalition for a Prosperous America, Kenneth Rapoza, had disparaged lawyers representing companies challenging lists 3 and 4 of the Section 301 tariffs (see 2009300004). “Importers and Exporters, Domestic Producers and the population at large have a right to expect proper federal enforcement of Trade Laws,” Simon Gluck lawyer Chris Kane said in an email that he also posted on LinkedIn Oct. 1. “Attorneys play an indispensable role in seeing that happens. In the last BIG case, attorneys protected the rights of U.S. Exporters, including the members of Mr. Rapoza’s employer, to retrospective refunds of and prospective dispensation from the Export Harbor Maintenance Tax all the way to U.S. Supreme Court and thereafter. That’s how it works in our legal system,” he said.
The thousands of complaints seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and have the duties refunded warrant the Court of International Trade assigning the litigation to a three-judge panel instead of a single judge, Akin Gump said Sept. 30 on behalf of importers HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, in a court filing. The Department of Justice told Akin Gump it opposes the motion and will file a response, it said.
Over 150 exclusions from lists 1 and 2 of Section 301 China tariffs are set to end Oct. 2, after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not include them in two recently released notices of exclusion extensions. In its notice on List 1 exclusions, USTR granted extensions to nine out of the 96 exclusions listed in U.S. Note 20(x) and filed under tariff schedule subheading 9903.88.19. USTR's notice on List 2 exclusions announced extensions to 28 out of the 113 currently listed in U.S. Note 20(y) and filed under subheading 9903.88.20.
More than 150 exclusions from lists 1 and 2 Section 301 China tariffs are set to expire Oct. 2, after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative declined to extend them in the days prior to their expiration.
The Coalition for a Prosperous America, a domestic industry group that supports the Section 301 tariffs on China, complained about the “cadre of legal firms” suing the Trump administration over the tariffs on goods from lists 3 and 4 (see 2009210025). “The equivalent of tariff ambulance chasers” recruited the companies to file the lawsuits, Kenneth Rapoza, CPA industry analyst, said in a blog post Sept. 29. Rapoza specifically mentions Sandler Travis, which said in a recent client notice that there was still time to file similar challenges, and notes the role of Sandler Travis lawyer Lenny Feldman as the co-chair of CBP's Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee. The blog post also highlights Akin Gump, which filed the first lawsuit, for being the largest lobbying operation in Washington and representing Chinese telecom company ZTE Corporation. Sandler Travis didn't respond to a request for comment. Akin Gump declined to comment.
The Department of Justice motion for case management procedures to navigate the thousands of Section 301 tariff complaints before the Court of International Trade (see 2009240026) was “procedurally defective” because it wasn’t served on any other plaintiffs who filed cases involving the original HMTX Industries lawsuit, said an opposition Sept. 28 from Paulsen Vandevert, lawyer for importers GHSP and Brose North America. The more than 3,400 complaints seek to have the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings vacated and the paid duties refunded. GHSP, a supplier of electromechanical systems to the automotive industry, and Brose, a distributor of mechatronic parts for motorized car seats, are in “full agreement” with DOJ that the many complaints will require case management procedures, Vandevert said. But his clients “strongly object” to designating the three “first-filed” complaints as test cases, he said.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Sept. 21-25 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Department of Justice ignored the rules of the Court of International Trade when it filed its motion for case management procedures (see 2009240026) in the original Section 301 litigation docket and not those of the other complaints, Husch Blackwell argued in court papers Sept. 25. The firm sued on behalf of 3A Composites USA and more than seven dozen other importers Sept. 18, and filed a second complaint for Flexfab Horizons International and five other plaintiffs Sept. 21. Both complaints, like the more than 3,400 others, seek to vacate the List 3 and List 4A tariffs and get the duties refunded. DOJ’s motion gave no explanation of why it “believes it needs to rush to put the procedures it suggests in place, or why its failure to follow the Court’s rules is justified,” Husch Blackwell said. The firm “only became aware of this Motion” through “a reference to it in the trade press, at which time we retrieved a copy of the Government’s Motion in the HMTX case from the Court’s docket in that separate case,” it said.
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters: