Mike O’Rielly, ex-FCC, joins APCO Worldwide as member, International Advisory Council ... Glen Echo Group adds Brad Williamson, ex-Pinkston, as senior director and Danielle Leopold, from Subject Matter, as senior associate; promotes Kylie Fronczak to associate ... Mehlman Castagnetti government affairs firm adds principals including Victoria Flood, ex-aide to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.; Flood has worked on broadband, data security, spectrum and oversight of FCC, FTC and NTIA.

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 15 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):

There’s statutory authority in 28 USC 1254, cited in recent case law, for the losing side in the Section 301 litigation to appeal the decision of the three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade directly to the Supreme Court without stopping first at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, several trade lawyers told us. “Technically, an appeal in the Federal Circuit needs to be filed, but before the Federal Circuit hears or even takes up the case, 28 USC 1254 allows the appellant to file a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court,” said one attorney, typifying others. “The practical effect is that at the appellants’ option they can petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court before the Federal Circuit takes the case.” The plaintiffs’ steering committee in the Section 301 litigation ultimately “will decide on strategy regarding an appeal of any adverse decision from the CIT,” emailed Sandler Travis trade expert David Cohen Wednesday. “Way too early to make that call, but I also note the Sup Ct. only hears an extremely low percentage of cases it is requested to take on.” Cohen told a Sandler Travis webinar Tuesday his firm thinks it’s “highly likely” the losing side in the Section 301 litigation will appeal (see 2106150080).

There’s statutory authority in 28 USC 1254, cited in recent case law, for the losing side in the Section 301 litigation to appeal the decision of the three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade directly to the Supreme Court without stopping first at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, several trade lawyers told us. “Technically, an appeal in the Federal Circuit needs to be filed, but before the Federal Circuit hears or even takes up the case, 28 USC 1254 allows the appellant to file a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court,” said one attorney, typifying others. “The practical effect is that at the appellants’ option they can petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court before the Federal Circuit takes the case.” The plaintiffs’ steering committee in the Section 301 litigation ultimately “will decide on strategy regarding an appeal of any adverse decision from the CIT,” emailed Sandler Travis trade expert David Cohen Wednesday. “Way too early to make that call, but I also note the Sup Ct. only hears an extremely low percentage of cases it is requested to take on.” Cohen told a Sandler Travis webinar Tuesday his firm thinks it’s “highly likely” the losing side in the Section 301 litigation will appeal (see 2106150080).

It could take two to three years to resolve the massive Section 301 litigation now before the Court of International Trade, especially since it’s “highly likely” the case will be appealed by whichever side loses, David Cohen, a trade expert with Sandler Travis, said on his law firm's webinar June 15. Roughly 3,800 importers are suing the government to declare the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods unlawful and get the money refunded.

Oral argument is scheduled for 10 a.m. on June 17 on a motion for a preliminary injunction to freeze liquidation of unliquidated entries from China with lists 3 or 4A tariff exposure in the ongoing litigation over the tariffs led by HMTX and Jasco at the Court of International Trade (see 2106140056). The public can listen through a dial-in audio feed by calling 1-855-244-8681, access code 172 077 0162. There is no need to register to listen to the proceeding, CIT said on its website.

Chief Judge Mark Barnett of the U.S. Court of International Trade gave both sides in the Section 301 litigation less than 72 hours to ponder tough questions he and others on the three-judge panel want answered during oral argument Thursday on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to freeze liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with Lists 3 or 4A tariff exposure (see 2106100001). Barnett asked (in Pacer) Akin Gump lawyers for sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products to square their argument that the court has the authority to order remedies through reliquidation or money judgment with their obligation to show they likely would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, “as articulated” in the Supreme Court’s 2008 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council opinion. The court in that case vacated a lower court’s injunction barring the Navy from using sonar in training exercises off the coast of Southern California due to the possibility it could harm marine mammals. “Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief,” wrote the court. If the purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is “to prevent the loss of something which cannot be remedied by a money judgment,” Barnett asked the government, doesn't DOJ’s argument that the court can’t order reliquidation or a money judgment “strongly support a finding of irreparable harm” for the plaintiffs seeking the injunction? Oral argument is scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday. The public can listen through a dial-in audio feed.

Chief Judge Mark Barnett of the U.S. Court of International Trade gave both sides in the Section 301 litigation less than 72 hours to ponder tough questions he and others on the three-judge panel want answered during oral argument Thursday on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to freeze liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with Lists 3 or 4A tariff exposure (see 2106100001). Barnett asked (in Pacer) Akin Gump lawyers for sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products to square their argument that the court has the authority to order remedies through reliquidation or money judgment with their obligation to show they likely would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, “as articulated” in the Supreme Court’s 2008 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council opinion. The court in that case vacated a lower court’s injunction barring the Navy from using sonar in training exercises off the coast of Southern California due to the possibility it could harm marine mammals. “Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief,” wrote the court. If the purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is “to prevent the loss of something which cannot be remedied by a money judgment,” Barnett asked the government, doesn't DOJ’s argument that the court can’t order reliquidation or a money judgment “strongly support a finding of irreparable harm” for the plaintiffs seeking the injunction? Oral argument is scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday. The public can listen through a dial-in audio feed.

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 15. The following headquarters rulings were modified recently, according to CBP:

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.