The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Oct. 3-9 and Oct. 10-16:

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Importer Advantus Corp. moved to voluntarily dismiss its case seeking to obtain Section 301 tariff refunds at the Court of International Trade. The case was previously stayed pending the appeal of decisions made in two cases, ARP Materials v. U.S. and Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. U.S. In these cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the trade court's ruling that a protest was needed to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions (see 2209060035). Both the Federal Circuit and CIT said that they did not have the jurisdiction to hear the challenge since the importers did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties (Advantus Corp. v. United States, CIT #21-00055).

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade should transfer interest in a case contesting the validity of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs filed by Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing to Hitachi Astemo Americas, counsel for Hitachi Astemo Americas said in a motion for transfer of interest. The U.S. consented to the transfer. Both Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's and Hitachi Astemo America's cases are under the massive Section 301 litigation. In July, Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing assigned all its interests in its case to Hitachi Astemo Americas, making it the real party in interest in Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's case, the motion said (Hitachi Astemo Americas v. United States, CIT #20-00973).

The public online docket will open Nov. 15 at midnight EST for comments on the “effectiveness” of the Section 301 tariffs in curbing China’s allegedly bad trade behavior, said an Office of the U.S. Trade Representative notice Wednesday. The docket will close Jan. 17 at midnight, it said. The agency seeks comments on other “actions or modifications that would be more effective” than the tariffs in curbing China’s practices on technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation, plus it wants feedback on “the effects of the actions on the U.S. economy, including U.S. consumers,” said the notice.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced changes to Harmonized Tariff Schedule numbers listed under exclusions from Section 301 tariffs effective for goods have either not been liquidated, or where entries that were liquidated but are not yet final, as of Oct. 14, according to a Federal Register notice released Oct. 13. The changes implement recent revisions to the tariff schedule, including those that took effect Jan. 1, 2022, and July 1, 2022, that affect subheadings previously listed as eligible for the exclusions. See USTR's notice for a full list of changes.

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai drew a distinction between 35% tariffs on Russian goods, which she said are designed to punish that country's war of aggression, and 25% (or 7.5%) tariffs on Chinese goods, which she said are not punishing tariffs.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.