Paul Gluckman, Executive Senior Editor, is a 30-year Warren Communications News veteran having joined the company in May 1989 to launch its Audio Week publication. In his long career, Paul has chronicled the rise and fall of physical entertainment media like the CD, DVD and Blu-ray and the advent of ATSC 3.0 broadcast technology from its rudimentary standardization roots to its anticipated 2020 commercial launch.

The Court of International Trade in its April 1 remand order gave the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “one final opportunity” to cure its Administrative Procedure Act violations and "flesh out" the reasons why it rejected the 9,000+ comments it received in the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariff rulemakings, without devising “new rationales for dismissing them,” Akin Gump lawyers for lead Section 301 plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products said in comments on USTR’s Aug. 1 remand determination. “USTR’s response to that directive flunks the Court’s test,” they said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).Read More >>

The Court of International Trade “bent over backwards” to allow the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to comply with its Administrative Procedure Act obligations in its imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods when it remanded the duties to the agency for further explanation on the rationale for the actions it took in the context of the comments it received, said an amicus brief filed Sept. 14 in the massive Section 301 litigation from the Retail Litigation Center, CTA, the National Retail Federation and four other trade associations. With USTR’s “non-responsive” answer to the remand order, the time has come for the court “to impose the normal remedy for unlawful agency action” and to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, it said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).Read More >>

Lawyers for the Section 301 test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products have until Sept. 14 to file their response to the Aug. 1 remand results on the lists 3 and 4A tariffs from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said an Aug. 15 scheduling order from the three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade. DOJ’s reply is due 44 days later, by Oct. 28, the order said. The two sides, in a joint status report, had agreed on the Sept. 14 date for the plaintiffs to respond to USTR’s remand results, but the government asked for 60 days to Nov. 14 to file its reply, while the plaintiffs asked for the government's reply within 30 days, by Oct. 14.Read More >>

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative often found itself weighing the possible harm to U.S. consumers from the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs against the need to give the duties enough teeth to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, the agency said in its 90-page “remand determination,” filed Aug. 1 at the Court of International Trade (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052). Submitting its bid to ease the court's concerns over modifications made to the third and fourth tariff waves, USTR provided its justifications for removing various goods from the tariff lists ranging from critical minerals to seafood products.Read More >>

Any chances that the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods would stimulate U.S. importers to shift their supply chains to alternative countries of origin were obliterated when the COVID-19 pandemic struck in early 2020, Jonathan Gold, National Retail Federation vice president-supply chain and customs policy, told the International Trade Commission in a virtual hearing July 21. The ITC completed three days of public hearings July 22 as part of its Tariff Act Section 332 investigation into the tariffs’ economic impact on U.S. industries.Read More >>