Busy Day for Lawsuits Seeking to Vacate Section 301 Tariffs

Stein Shostak in Los Angeles filed all but one of the actions on behalf of small apparel importers seeking to get only the List 4A rulemaking vacated and the tariffs refunded. Pollack left the List 3 tariffs out of the complaints, setting his actions virtually alone among the roughly 3,700 complaints filed since Sept. 10. Pollack's argument establishes Aug. 20, 2019, when the List 4A notice was published in the Federal Register, as the date when the two-year clock on the statute of limitations began. Like virtually all the other lawsuits, Pollack argues the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its 1974 Trade Act authority when it imposed List 4A as retaliatory duties against the Chinese. USTR's List 4A rulemaking also was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because it “did not provide a sufficient opportunity for comment, failed to meaningfully consider relevant factors when making their decisions, and failed to adequately explain their rationale,” he argued on behalf of importer client Ya Ya Creations (in Pacer). The one complaint (in Pacer) Thursday that wasn’t Pollack’s was filed on behalf of Bissell home care products by the Dallas law firm Polsinelli. Attorney Michelle Schulz modeled her complaint after most of the others, seeking to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs. Bissell is “entitled to declaratory judgment” that USTR’s actions were “contrary to law,” said Schulz. USTR didn’t respond to questions Friday.