The thousands of complaints seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and have the duties refunded warrant the Court of International Trade assigning the litigation to a three-judge panel instead of a single judge, Akin Gump said Sept. 30 on behalf of importers HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, in a court filing. The Department of Justice told Akin Gump it opposes the motion and will file a response, it said.
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.
The Court of International Trade should use a case management approach for the numerous Section 301 tariff lawsuits similar to the one used for litigation over the harbor maintenance tax (HMT), the Department of Justice said in a Sept. 23 filing. That should include the selection of a “test case” and a stay of all other cases involved, DOJ said. The filing marks DOJ's first since HMTX Industries filed suit to force refunds of Section 301 tariffs paid on lists 3 and 4 goods from China (see 2009110005).
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 Court of International Trade is deluged with hundreds of lawsuits that closely model a challenge from Akin Gump and HMTX Industries that seeks to force refunds of Section 301 tariffs paid on lists 3 and 4 goods from China (see 2009110005). Such a torrent of filings is rare but not unheard of at the CIT, lawyers involved with and following the litigation said. The most obvious example was the yearslong litigation over the harbor maintenance tax (HMT), they said.
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.