The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “properly exercised its authority” under the Section 307 modification provisions of the 1974 Trade Act when it ordered the imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, the Court of International Trade ruled in an April 1 opinion. Test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, plus the more than 3,600 complaints that followed, sought to vacate the tariffs on grounds that lists 3 and 4A were unlawful without USTR launching a new Section 301 investigation.
The Court of International Trade heard oral argument on Feb. 1 over whether lists 3 and 4A of Section 301 tariffs were properly imposed, marking one of the largest cases in the CIT's history. The hourslong affair saw the judges push back on arguments made by both the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs, with significant attention paid to the procedural elements of the president's decision to impose the retaliatory Section 301 tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. In all, the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves heard from the Department of Justice, counsel for the test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, and amici.
Section 301 sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products “persuasively argue” that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “clearly exceeded its authority” under the 1974 Trade Act when it imposed the “massive” lists 3 and 4A tariffs on “virtually all imports” from China “without connecting them to the underlying investigation of China’s trade practices,” said the Consumer Technology Association, the National Retail Federation and five other trade groups Aug. 9 in an amicus brief in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The Court of International Trade postponed for two weeks an Aug. 6 deadline for CBP to create the repository through which Section 301 importers can seek to freeze liquidations of customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure under the court's July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order. Judge Claire Kelly told a status conference Aug. 2 that the court also is postponing for two weeks the Aug. 6 deadline for plaintiffs and the government to propose modifications to the PI order.
The Court of International Trade should dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation because the companies can’t establish that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded its authority, the Department of Justice said in a June 1 motion. The agency didn't overstep the 1974 Trade Act when it ratcheted up the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52 said.
The three-judge panel in the Section 301 litigation before the U.S. Court of International Trade scheduled an April 26 status conference for 9:30 a.m. EDT, an order signed Thursday said. The conference is an apparent try at hammering out a compromise between plaintiffs and defendants over the disputed refund relief issue for importers seeking to have the lists 3 and 4A tariffs vacated. Broad disagreement separates the HMTX-Jasco plaintiffs in the sample case from the government over whether importers who prevail on the merits of the massive litigation would be entitled to tariff refunds on customs entries whose liquidations are final, according to a joint status report filed April 12 with the court (see 2104130036). The impasse had HMTX-Jasco attorneys from Akin Gump warning they would move April 22 for a declaratory judgment that the court has the authority to order refunds of liquidated entries if the plaintiffs win. They alternatively threatened to seek a court injunction to suspend liquidations on all goods from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure until the litigation is resolved. Scheduling the status conference for four days after the Akin Gump deadline suggests those motions are now on hold, pending the outcome of the conference. Akin Gump and DOJ didn’t comment Friday.
Broad disagreement separates the HMTX-Jasco plaintiffs from the government in the massive Section 301 litigation over the issue of whether importers who prevail on the merits of the case would be entitled to tariff refunds on customs entries for which liquidations become final, according to a joint status report filed April 12 with the Court of International Trade.
A three-judge Court of International Trade panel will oversee all cases tackling the legality of lists 3 and 4 Section 301 China tariffs, Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu said in an order signed Feb. 5. Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves -- the three most senior active judges on the court -- were assigned to hear one of the largest mass filings in the court's history.
Complaint filings at the Court of International Trade seeking to have the Section 301 lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings vacated and the duties refunded (see 2009210025) slowed to a trickle in November, with fewer than 10 filed within the last two weeks. Of the roughly 3,700 complaints filed since Sept. 10, about 140 have been filed since Sept. 24. That’s the two-year anniversary date of List 3 taking effect and was within the statute of limitations that many lawyers cited under court rules to establish the timeliness of their actions. A plaintiff must file an action within two years “after the cause of action accrues,” court rules say. Lawyers in the subsequent actions will try to establish that the clock started when their importer clients first paid the tariffs.
President Donald Trump’s “many tweets” and statements from his administration are strong evidence the White House unlawfully imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs to boost the U.S. Treasury and not curb the allegedly bad Chinese trade behavior documented in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s March 2018 Section 301 investigative report. So said the lawyer for two automotive components importers making the case that the tariffs are unconstitutional because only Congress has the power of taxation.