Customs duty

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.

CBP is seeking comments by Oct. 30 on an existing information collection request for commercial invoices, it said in a notice. CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

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.

Whether the deadline has passed for court challenges to lists 3 and 4 of Section 301 tariffs of goods from China continues to be in question, lawyers following the case have said. While some have pegged the deadline to Sept. 21 based on a two-year statute of limitations from when the List 3 tariffs were published in the Federal Register (see 2009160056), other factors remain in play. Filing sooner rather than later is seen as preferable, the lawyers said.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, is arguing that not only does the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program need to be renewed this year, the length of authorization should be substantially lengthened. It is currently on a two-year authorization; Heritage says 10 years would make it more useful to American businesses that take advantage of the tariff relief, as making supply chain decisions takes time.

High tech goods from China that are eligible for USMCA treatment remain subject to applicable Section 301 tariffs, CBP said in a Sept. 11 ruling. The ruling is a follow-up to a ruling in August that addressed a question of whether goods that originate in China and imported from Mexico are eligible for USMCA treatment (see 2008110037). While CBP in the previous ruling said that such goods are eligible for USMCA treatment, the agency didn't say then whether the Section 301 tariffs would apply.

Importers that want to benefit from a lawsuit challenging list 3 and list 4A Section 301 tariffs on goods from China may face a tight deadline for filing their own cases at the Court of International Trade, law firms said in recent days. “This lawsuit, if successful, could result in the refund of all Section 301 tariffs levied on List 3 and List 4A goods from China,” the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America said in an emailed alert. “However, importers must file their own independent claims to preserve their potential refunds by Friday, Sept. 18.”

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 7-13:

A vinyl tile supplier challenged the extension of tariffs to cover the third list of goods from China using Section 301 tariff authority, in a lawsuit filed Sept. 10 at the Court of International Trade. Represented by lawyers at Akin Gump, HMTX Industries and subsidiaries Halstead and Metroflor said the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped the Section 301 statute when it made more goods subject to the tariffs 12 months after the beginning of the investigation. The law doesn't provide authority for the government to “litigate a vast trade war for however long, and by whatever means, they choose,” the company said.

With only 20 days left before expiration, lead sponsor Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., said she hopes her colleagues will support a clean reauthorization of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, and that she fears that trying to move this bill with a Generalized System of Preferences benefits program expansion and renewal will cause delays. She said that the most recent report on the program from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said all eight countries are in compliance with their obligations, including labor rights.