U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Suzanne Clark, in her annual "State of American Business" speech Jan. 12, said that if the Biden administration fails to strike a balance on how to respond to China's economic posture, it "could undermine our security, our economy, our competitiveness, and our future."

Three cases that were suspended pending the resolution of an action over whether protests are needed to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions continue to be stayed pending resolution of the massive Section 301 litigation, according to a Jan. 6 order from the Court of International Trade (Trebbianno v. U.S., CIT # 20-00135) (Westport v. U.S., CIT # 20-00190) (Uniflex Church Furnishings v. U.S., CIT # 20-03571).

A trade lawyer who has clients in the auto industry says that Mexico's and Canada's auto rules of origin arbitration win does not necessarily change sourcing and investment decisions, because automakers were already proceeding as if 100% of originating parts' value would be counted when calculating the regional value content of vehicles.

The following lawsuit was 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 week of Jan. 3-8:

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 6 order dismissed a customs case from importer Tylt over the retroactive application of exclusions that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted for certain goods subject to Section 301 tariffs. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action. Tylt's complaint said the language in the exclusion announcement doesn't prevent Section 301 refunds for entries that are not protestable since the protest deadline expired. It also said the USTR's withholding the refund of duties for entries that are not protestable is arbitrary and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (Tylt v. U.S., CIT # 21-00579).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 4 order dismissed a customs case from importer Spartan Tools. The company brought the case looking to recover Section 301 duties it paid on its machinery part imports entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8412.29.8015, 8479.90.9496, 8483.30.8090 and 8483.50.9040, for which the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted an exclusion. The case was tossed for lack of prosecution since it was placed in the customs case management calendar and not removed "at the expiration of the applicable period of time of removal," the trade court said (Spartan Tools v. United States, CIT #20-03903).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Importer Kyocera Document Solutions America will get refunds on Section 301 duties paid for its printer maintenance kits that were granted a tariff exclusion by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The importer filed a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on an agreed set of facts, which say that the maintenance kits, liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8443.99.2050 and assessed Section 301 tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.01, fit under the exclusion.