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.

Friday’s unanimous three-judge opinion at the U.S. Court of International Trade remanding the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for correcting deficiencies in the agency’s Administrative Procedure Act compliance (see 2204010059) extends the current litigation at least until mid-summer. The opinion, written by Chief Judge Mark Barnett and coming two months to the day after Feb. 1 oral argument (see 2202010053), gives USTR 90 days, to June 30, to respond to the remand order, and orders the plaintiffs and the government to convene on a joint status report, including a proposed schedule on “the further disposition of this litigation,” for submission 14 days after USTR files its remand results.

The unanimous three-judge opinion at the U.S. Court of International Trade remanding the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on April 1 for correcting deficiencies in the agency’s Administrative Procedure Act compliance extends the current litigation at least until mid-summer. The opinion, written by Chief Judge Mark Barnett and coming two months to the day after Feb. 1 oral argument was held (see 2202010059), gives USTR 90 days, to June 30, to respond to the remand order, and orders the plaintiffs and the government to submit a joint status report 14 days after that, including a proposed schedule on “the further disposition of this litigation.”

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

The unanimous three-judge opinion at the U.S. Court of International Trade remanding the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on April 1 for correcting deficiencies in the agency’s Administrative Procedure Act compliance extends the current litigation at least until mid-summer. The opinion, written by Chief Judge Mark Barnett and coming two months to the day after Feb. 1 oral argument was held (see 2202010059), gives USTR 90 days, to June 30, to respond to the remand order, and orders the plaintiffs and the government to submit a joint status report 14 days after that, including a proposed schedule on “the further disposition of this litigation.”

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “properly exercised its authority” under the Section 307 modification provisions of the 1974 Trade Act when it ordered the imposition of the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Friday. Test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, plus the more than 3,600 complaints that followed, sought to vacate the tariffs on grounds that Lists 3 and 4A were unlawful without USTR launching a new Section 301 investigation tat formed the legal basis of the Lists 1 and 2 tariffs.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “properly exercised its authority” under the Section 307 modification provisions of the 1974 Trade Act when it ordered the imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, the Court of International Trade ruled in an April 1 opinion. Test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, plus the more than 3,600 complaints that followed, sought to vacate the tariffs on grounds that lists 3 and 4A were unlawful without USTR launching a new Section 301 investigation.

Section 301 product exclusions have been reinstated. “The functionality for the acceptance of the reinstated product exclusions will be available in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) as of 7:00 am eastern standard time, April 7, 2022,” CBP said in guidance released March 31. “To request a refund of Section 301 duties paid on previous imports of products granted duty exclusions by the USTR, importers may file a Post Summary Correction (PSC) if within the PSC filing timeframe,” the agency said. “If the entry is beyond the PSC filing timeframe, importers may protest the liquidation if within the protest filing timeframe.”

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “properly exercised its authority” under the Section 307 modification provisions of the 1974 Trade Act when it ordered the imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, the Court of International Trade ruled in an April 1 opinion. Test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, plus the more than 3,600 complaints that followed, sought to vacate the tariffs on grounds that lists 3 and 4A were unlawful without USTR launching a new Section 301 investigation.

The U.S. Court of International Trade dealt a serious blow to the more than 3,600 lawsuits challenging Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs, finding that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative had the authority to impose those tariffs. In the highly anticipated opinion, the court ruled against the plaintiffs' argument that the USTR could not impose Section 301 tariffs because the government was responding to retaliatory tariffs from China.