The Court of International Trade vacated the repository requirement imposed in its July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order for importers to request suspending the liquidation of customs entries from China with Section 301 Lists 3 or 4A tariff exposure, said an order signed Sept. 8 by Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. The government will liquidate those entries “in the ordinary course” and refund the money with interest if the tariffs are declared unlawful, “should that decision become final and conclusive, including all appeals,” it said. The court also vacated the PI order’s temporary restraining order period when no entries could have liquidated, with or without the repository.

The American Association of Exporters and Importers, IBM and U.S. subsidiaries of the Foxconn Technology Group all disagree with CBP's proposed use of Part 102 rules of origin in non-preferential claims and procurement under USMCA (see 2107010045), they said in the comments recently posted in the docket for the proposal. Meanwhile, lithium-ion battery producer, Inventus Power, and the American Iron and Steel Institute voiced support for the changes in their comments. So far, the comments show a deep split between industries in support (see 2107270049) and against (see 2109010006) the proposal.

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

Language disagreements remain between the Section 301 plaintiffs and the government in proposing modifications to the July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order at the U.S. Court of International Trade that would eliminate the need for a Customs and Border Protection repository for customs entries from China with Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure, said the two sides in a joint status report (in Pacer) Friday. It was the last date proposed modifications in the PI order were due. DOJ wants the order worded to say that refunds of liquidated entries would be available only to importers of record who paid the tariffs, if plaintiffs prevail on the merits at the end of the litigation, it said. It makes “no sense” for plaintiffs to oppose the language, as the plaintiffs said they do, because “only importers of record who are plaintiffs could possibly seek reliquidation and, if approved by the courts, be directly affected by any reliquidation,” said the government. Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products responded that while the “vast majority” of the Section 301 cases involve importers of record, some of the stayed cases involve plaintiffs that don’t fit that description. The issue hasn't been raised in recent status conferences and filings, and modifying the PI order is not the “proper vehicle” for resolving it, they said. Plaintiffs “stand ready” to continue working with the government on “streamlining the process for implementing the refund remedy in preparation for the end of this litigation” if the plaintiffs win, said the Akin Gump attorneys. But DOJ took a different tone. “In our view, plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of the Section 301 cases, and no such resource-intensive task will be necessary” at the end of the trial to properly dole out tariff refunds, it said. “In light of the extensive resources we have already dedicated to compliance with the preliminary injunction, unless ordered by the Court, we have no reason to continue working on a reliquidation or refund process unless and until the plaintiffs prevail on the merits.” Akin Gump's lawyers, on the other hand, said they defer to the court “on the proper schedule for such efforts.”

CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:​

The National Association of Manufacturers CEO is calling on the Biden administration to "act as quickly as possible to finalize and publicize [its China] strategy. Such a clear, robust strategy on China, including U.S.-China trade, would be critical in bolstering manufacturers’ efforts to retain and hire American workers, invest in domestic operations and adjust supply chains, and providing meaningful opportunities for manufacturers to seek targeted relief from broad application of Section 301 tariffs."

The U.S. Court of International Trade extended by a week to Sept. 10 Friday's deadline for Customs and Border Protection to activate the repository imposed in the July 6 preliminary injunction order for importers to suspend the liquidation of customs entries from China with Section 301 Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. Chief Judge Mark Barnett proposed the delay at Wednesday’s status conference after plaintiffs and the government appeared close to an agreement on a refund stipulation plan that would make the repository unnecessary (see 2109010050). Activating the repository anyway Friday in light of the pending agreement would be “an exercise in futility,” Barnett told the court.

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

The U.S. Court of International Trade extended by a week to Sept. 10 the deadline for CBP to activate the repository imposed in the July 6 preliminary injunction order for importers to suspend the liquidation of customs entries from China with Section 301 lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. Chief Judge Mark Barnett proposed the delay at a status conference held Sept. 1 after plaintiffs and the government appeared close to an agreement on a refund stipulation plan that would make the repository unnecessary (see 2109010055). Activating the repository anyway on its original Sept. 3 deadline in light of the pending agreement would be “an exercise in futility,” Barnett told the court prior to issuing the text order.

CBP was incorrect to not extend a Section 301 tariff exclusion on side protective attachments for cars onto Keystone Automotive Operations' entries, the importer said in its Sept. 2 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Claiming that the auto parts fit under the terms of the exclusion, Keystone is challenging CBP's deemed denial of its protest (Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00215).