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.

The Department of Justice declined to submit additional arguments in defense of President Donald Trump's decision to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to steel derivatives beyond its original argument in front of the Court of International Trade, guaranteeing that the court will overturn the steel derivatives tariffs but allowing for an appeal.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 1-7:

Walmart threw its massive weight behind the Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade when it joined thousands of other importers March 8 in seeking to get the lists 3 and 4A Chinese tariffs vacated and the duties refunded. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its 1974 Trade Act authority when it waged the retaliatory tariffs against the Chinese and violated the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act by running tariff rulemakings that lacked transparency, the retail giant’s complaint said, mirroring virtually all the 3,500 others filed since the beginning in mid-September. Walmart also joined the roughly two dozen small importers that argue that the list 3 and 4A duties also are “unlawful and unconstitutional” because only Congress has the power of taxation. The tariffs also “were enacted contrary to the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process of law,” Walmart said. From statements made by President Donald Trump and other officials in his administration, “an additional, if not the sole, reason and purpose for the List 3 additional duties was to collect revenue for the federal general treasury,” the complaint said. “To the extent the List 3 additional duties were revenue collection measures, they were beyond the scope of actions USTR was authorized to take by the Trade Act of 1974 and, therefore, were unlawful.” Hogan Lovells is representing Walmart in the case. USTR didn’t comment.

The Justice Department has moved to dismiss a case at the Court of International Trade that challenges the legality of President Donald Trump's move to withdraw a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. The move indicates that the new Biden administration will, at least for the time being, not back down from its defense of the tariff exemption withdrawal, instead declaring that the president's actions were lawful.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 22-28:

Canadian textile company Tricots Liesse 1983 must pay its surety, Aegis Security Insurance, $768,916.53 along with legal fees for a customs bond payment that Aegis made on Tricots' behalf to cover unpaid duties on textile imports. Tricots must reimburse Aegis after Tricots failed to object to Aegis' motion for a quick ruling on the facts of the case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Feb. 26 summary judgment. While the bond payment amount is not under dispute, Judge Richard Eaton did not accept Aegis' quote for its legal fees and ordered the surety to provide additional evidence of how much it is owed in attorney's fees, costs and expenses. Aegis initially submitted attorney time sheets on Aegis letterhead, claiming over $92,000 in legal fees that the court deemed did not meet the evidentiary standard for reimbursement. The lawyer for Tricots withdrew from the case Sept. 23, 2020.

Keirton USA Inc., a manufacturer based in Washington state, filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, calling for CBP to stop seizing, denying entry to or detaining any of the company's products. The company makes machinery used to harvest hemp, kale, hops and other farm goods and has had continued troubles with CBP dating back to 2012, with the real issues beginning in May 2020. Keirton's flagship product is the Twister Trimmer -- a cannabis and hemp trimmer that the company assures is only used in a legal capacity.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 15-21:

Some major publishing houses, along with several other smaller publishers, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the legality of List 4A of the Section 301 tariffs on China goods. In a Feb. 17 filing, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, with others, said the 10% tariff extension to more than $120 billion in List 4A goods violated the Administrative Procedure Act -- a legal theory used by more than 3,500 other companies in similar cases against the tariffs. Also party to the suit are Bloomsbury Publishing, HarperCollins Christian Publishing, Holtzbrinck Publishers, Storey Publishing, Teacher Created Materials, The Experiment, Timber Press and Workman Publishing.