Plaintiffs' Argument for Leave to File Reply in Section 301 Injunction Fight 'Disregards the Law,' DOJ Says
Plaintiffs' arguments on why they should be able to file a reply brief in discussions on a preliminary injunction in the massive Section 301 litigation disregard and misunderstand the law, as well as the Department of Justice's previous arguments, DOJ said in a May 26 response. DOJ deferred to the court's discretion whether they believe the plaintiff's proposed reply "aids the court's understanding of the disagreement between the [p]arties."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The plaintiffs originally filed for leave to reply to DOJ's response to the motion for injunctive relief in a May 20 filing, saying that DOJ's response was the first time they got to see the defense's detailed arguments (see 2105210020). The government’s response “delves deeply” into Office of the U.S. Trade Representative defenses of the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, the May 20 filing said. Plaintiffs believe the court “would benefit from hearing all of the arguments” before deciding on the injunction, which is why it should grant leave and accept the reply. The plaintiffs say the government's view of the law regarding the availability of refunds was not "fully explained'' prior to DOJ's opposition and that DOJ presented new arguments regarding the government's burden of compliance with interim relief.
DOJ argues that it made its position clear on the issue of delayed relief in its joint status report, and its argument on the burden of compliance was misunderstood by plaintiffs. In its response to the motion for a preliminary injunction, DOJ pointed out that there are 4.9 million entries subject to the Section 301 tariffs that remain unliquidated. Plaintiffs mistook that number to be the number of liquidated entries subject to Section 301 tariffs rather than unliquidated ones, DOJ said. DOJ deferred to the court's discretion whether they believe the plaintiffs' proposed reply "aids the court's understanding of the disagreement between the parties."