The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 13-19:
A day after the White House's primary spokesperson said that if there's an opportunity to renegotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's a discussion the U.S. could join, a former White House trade negotiator said the path to reentering the TPP is so steep that he doesn't think it's likely in the next few years.
Importers should be reviewing existing tariff classifications for their products and planning ahead for major changes to the tariff schedule that will take effect Jan. 1 when the U.S. implements 2022 changes to the global Harmonized System, Flexport’s Adam Dambrov said during a Sept. 15 webinar. Particularly affected by the changes are goods of chapters 44, 84 and 85, with some changes to chapter notes also resulting in changes for textiles and apparel.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 6-12:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Sept. 7-10 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Sept. 9. The following headquarters rulings were modified recently, according to CBP:
Citing unnamed sources, Bloomberg reported that the U.S. feels its leverage has faded from 25% tariffs on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Chinese goods and 7.5% tariffs on most of the rest. So, the report said, the administration is considering initiating another Section 301 report, which would focus on the impact on American businesses from Chinese subsidization of its industry. The same story said officials are "leaning toward" reinstituting tariff exclusions on some of the products already subject to tariffs, but also said no decision has been made.
Sept. 10 is the one-year anniversary of the first-filed Section 301 complaint alleging the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods are unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act and violate the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act. Virtually all the roughly 3,800 cases from 6,500 or more importers that have since inundated the Court of International Trade seek to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded with interest. A court order Sept. 8 vacated components of its July 6 preliminary injunction order instructed the government to liquidate customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure “in the ordinary course” and refund the money with interest if the tariffs are declared unlawful, once the litigation becomes “final and conclusive” (see 2107060077). The order also frees the litigation to return to arguments on the merits after a prolonged battle over many months over refund relief. Oct. 1 is the deadline for Department of Justice to file papers supporting its June 1 dispositive motion and response to the plaintiffs’ Aug. 2 cross-motion. Nov. 15, the last date listed on the court’s April 13 briefing schedule, is when the plaintiffs file their reply.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 30 - Sept. 5:
The American Association of Exporters and Importers, IBM and U.S. subsidiaries of the Foxconn Technology Group all disagree with CBP's proposed use of Part 102 rules of origin in non-preferential claims and procurement under USMCA (see 2107010045), they said in the comments recently posted in the docket for the proposal. Meanwhile, lithium-ion battery producer, Inventus Power, and the American Iron and Steel Institute voiced support for the changes in their comments. So far, the comments show a deep split between industries in support (see 2107270049) and against (see 2109010006) the proposal.