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

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative stuck by its decision not to reinstate a Section 301 China tariff exclusion for drinking water cooler products, the agency said in Dec. 14 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. USTR said that while the availability of these goods from places outside of China is limited, the record shows that sources outside of China have picked up since 2018 with third-country imports growing "significantly in the first six months after the exclusion expired." While these sources, along with domestic production, fail to meet domestic demand, the record does not show that the additional duties are "impacting or resulting in severe economic harm to U.S. companies or other interests" (DS Services of America v. United States, CIT #22-00157).

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is extending tariff exclusions for 352 products from China that had been scheduled to expire Dec. 31. Those exclusions will now last until Sept. 30.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is extending tariff exclusions for 352 products from China that had been scheduled to expire on Dec. 31. Those exclusions will now last until Sept. 30 next year.

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.

CBP failed to pay a refund of Section 301 duties to Sonos for imports of wireless speakers and audio components for which exclusions had been granted, the importer argued in a Dec. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Due to this alleged failure, Sonos is seeking over $229,000 in refunds of the Section 301 duties paid (Sonos v. U.S., CIT #22-00337).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case in which it dismissed a suit seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit said that because a protest was not filed with CBP on the relevant entries, the court did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jursidiction, since jurisdiction would have existed under Section 1581(a) (see 2209060035). The appellants, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, then attempted to file for a rehearing, arguing that the issue was not directly delegated to CBP, in violation of the Constitution under the major questions doctrine. This bid was rejected (see 2212020073) (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).

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