The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 26 order stayed the consideration of the merits of plaintiff Environment One's claims in a case seeking to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions until the court settles the U.S.'s motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DOJ moved to stay consideration of Environment One's claim its merchandise falls within the scope of the claimed exclusion, arguing the stay "would advance the interests of justice" and "could render litigation on the nature of plaintiff's imported merchandise to be unnecessary." Judge Mark Barnett agreed (Environment One v. U.S., CIT #22-00124).

An economist and a former assistant U.S. trade representative for trade policy and economics agreed that rolling back the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports would be modestly helpful to fight inflation, but that it wouldn't be noticeable to many consumers. Ed Gresser, the former assistant USTR now at the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, said that he thinks the administration's talk that the best way to refine the Trump-era tariffs is to roll back those on consumer goods is misguided. "The effect there has been to shift a lot of purchasing to Vietnam, a little bit to Mexico and a little bit to India," he said, so he doesn't think inflation would change much if those tariffs are dialed back. He said the more inflationary part of the tariffs is the 25% tariffs on industrial inputs.

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

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.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Aug. 15-21 and 22-28:

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.

Large U.S. multinationals are more pessimistic about doing business in China than they have ever been, but it's not because they have come to expect the Section 301 tariffs will never go away. Rather, the annual U.S.-China Business Council membership survey found that lockdowns to control COVID-19 are the top problem for companies doing business in China, with 96% of respondents saying the lockdowns hurt their firms, and 48% saying that there was a severe negative impact.

No "open process" currently exists to apply for exclusions from the Section 301 tariffs on imports from China, commented the National Electrical Manufacturers Association Wednesday in docket 332-591 in the International Trade Commission’s Tariff Act Section 332 investigation into the economic impact of the Chinese tariffs on U.S. industries (see 2208260034). A report to Congress on ITC's findings is due by March 15. The exclusions process USTR had in place from 2018 to 2020, plus a subsequent window to request exclusions for a narrow list of products in 2021, were “not transparent,” said NEMA, citing a GAO report in July that faulted USTR for failure to “fully document its procedures for internal decision-making” on the tariff exclusions. NEMA member companies “found the exclusions process to be capricious and difficult to navigate,” said the association. A new, fair and transparent exclusions process “is needed to provide tariff relief, especially for components and materials used in domestic manufacturing,” said NEMA. Leaving the Section 301 tariffs in place with no possible exemptions creates “significant challenges, costs, and uncertainty for U.S. businesses,” it said. “Providing relief from these tariffs will assist companies as they reorient supply chains, manage inflationary pressures, and aid in the nation’s infrastructure improvement.” USTR didn’t comment.

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

Some companies said in recently submitted comments they used to benefit from Section 232 tariffs but no longer do. Others said they previously were able to mitigate the cost impact of Section 301 tariffs through exclusions, finding other suppliers or other trade benefits but can't anymore.