The Lists 1 and 2 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports didn’t terminate on the fourth anniversaries of their imposition dates, July 6 and Aug. 23, after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative received “numerous requests” from “domestic industries” to keep the duties intact, said an agency notice Friday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 6 opinion said that the Court of International Trade was right to dismiss a suit from two importers seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since a protest with CBP was not filed. The trade court held that it did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had the importers, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, filed protests with CBP. The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that the true nature of the suit contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusions, necessitating a protest.

When asked what the U.S. wants from China in economic terms, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai borrowed a metaphor from a former assistant U.S. trade representative responsible for trade negotiations between the U.S. and China. She said that he said the trade relationship with China is like two teams showing up to play football, but one is playing American football, and the other is playing what the rest of the world calls football that the U.S. calls soccer.

The lists 1 and 2 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports didn’t terminate on the fourth anniversaries of their imposition dates, July 6 and Aug. 23, after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative received “numerous requests” from “domestic industries” to keep the duties intact, according to an agency notice late Sept. 2.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 6 opinion said the Court of International Trade was right to toss a suit from two importers seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions. The trade court held that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) but would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had the importers, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, filed protests with CBP. The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that the suit contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not USTR's exclusions and the importers had ample chance to file a protest as ARP's exclusions were granted months before the deadline to file a protest for the relevant entries. The court ruled that Harrison's entries, which were granted exclusions beyond the 180-day deadline to file a protest, also would have had the chance to request a refund via a post summary correction, making Section 1581(a) the proper jurisdiction for the challenge.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 6 opinion said that the Court of International Trade was right to dismiss a suit from two importers seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since a protest with CBP was not filed. The trade court held that it did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had the importers, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, filed protests with CBP. The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that the true nature of the suit contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusions, necessitating a protest.

The State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser on Aug. 30 released its "Digest of United States Practice in International Law" for 2021. Chapter 3 covers the termination of International Criminal Court-related sanctions, and Chapter 16 focuses on sanctions developments from 2021, export controls and recent litigation and other restrictions. The document gives a record of the view and practice of the U.S. government.

The State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser on Aug. 30 released its "Digest of United States Practice in International Law" for 2021. Chapter 3 covers the termination of International Criminal Court-related sanctions, and Chapter 16 focuses on sanctions developments from 2021, export controls and recent litigation and other restrictions. The document gives a record of the view and practice of the U.S. government.

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 1 order granted the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's motion to voluntarily reconsider its decision to not reinstate an exclusion to the Section 301 duties on water coolers from China. Plaintiff DS Services of America, doing business as Primo Water North America, didn't oppose the motion. USTR said it wanted to reevaluate its decision given Prime Water's charges of the agency's alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and Natural Choice's request to withdraw its opposition to the reinstatement of the exclusion (DS Services of America v. U.S., CIT #22-00157).

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