CBP did not liquidate imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China past a key six-month time limit, the U.S. Court of International Trade found in an April 9 opinion. Ruling in favor of the U.S. government, Chief Judge Mark Barnett found that CBP properly liquidated the furniture entries within six months of being notified by a message from Commerce that an injunction against the entries' liquidation was lifted. Barnett also found that the agency's reliquidation of another entry from importer Aspects Furniture International, following the entry's deemed liquidation without a notice to the importer, did not violate the pre-2016 version of the reliquidation statute.
Christopher Kane, partner at Simon Gluck, expressed optimism over a recent U.S. Court of International Trade ruling striking down an extension of President Donald Trump's Section 232 tariffs to aluminum and steel derivatives (see 2104050049). He believes the ruling spells good news for the massive litigation involving more than 3,700 companies challenging the expansion of the Section 301 tariffs on goods from China. Although based on a different law, Kane believes CIT's April 5 ruling demonstrates the court's willingness to hold the president to account over laws and regulations. In the case of the derivatives, the tariff expansion was eliminated because it was imposed after a 105-day period during which the president can impose Section 232 tariffs after receiving a report on the need for the duties from the Commerce Department.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 29 - April 4:
The Court of International Trade found that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding Section 232 tariffs to steel and aluminum “derivatives,” in an April 5 decision granting refunds to steel nail importer PrimeSource Building Products. Judges Timothy Stanceu and Jennifer Choe-Groves, as part of a three-judge panel, struck down the tariff expansion, ruling that the president exceeded his authority to impose tariffs when he elected to extend them to derivative products. Judge M. Miller Baker, the remaining judge on the panel, dissented from the opinion.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 22-28:
CBP incorrectly reversed its own Enforce and Protect Act determination that an importer evaded antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, a U.S. shrimp industry group said in a complaint filed at the Court of International Trade March 23. The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee (AHSTEC), made up of shrimp producers and wholesalers, said CBP should have stuck with its original finding that Minh Phu transshipped Indian shrimp through Vietnam, in part because the exporter did not provide enough information on its supply chain.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 15-21:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna asked probing questions on the ability of the president to implement or alter Section 232 national security tariffs with few impediments, during oral argument on March 18. The judge questioned Department of Justice counsel Tara Hogan about the government's defense of tariff alterations President Donald Trump made in 2018 and said that the way the government interpreted the law on tariff modifications would not be applicable in his line of business.
Malaysian palm oil importer Sime Darby Plantation Berhad filed a lawsuit against Duncan Jepson, the managing director of non-governmental organization Liberty Shared, attempting to force the turnover of information relevant to an investigation into forced labor allegations filed by Jepson with the Securities Commission of Malaysia, the company detailed in a news release. The case was brought before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on March 9 to get Jepson to provide information to help Sime Darby comply with the foreign proceeding in which Jepson alleged wrongful disclosures in the Malaysian company's 2019 Sustainability Report that resulted in the company reporting false or misleading statements about its use of forced labor. The Securities Commission investigation marks the second major governmental inquiry into allegations of forced labor in Sime Darby plantations, with CBP issuing a withhold release order on the importer's products in December.
Litigants challenging lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs have a “difficult hill to climb” in making a compelling case for why the tariffs should be lifted, a lawyer said. Speaking March 11 on a panel at Georgetown Law's 2021 International Trade Update on the courts' role in tariffs, Bradford Ward of King & Spalding called out the central claim used by one of the litigants: that the law does not permit the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to increase tariffs, only to “delay, taper or terminate such actions.” In the same provision of that law, modification of tariffs is authorized when the burden on U.S. commerce has increased or decreased, meaning the agency can increase or decrease tariffs, said Ward, who used to work at USTR and now represents domestic industry. “It would be illogical, from my perspective, for the statute to prohibit an increase in tariffs while recognizing the ability of USTR to modify via an increase in the burden. It doesn't seem coherent,” Ward said.