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.

Although the Senate Finance Committee's bipartisan amendment to the China package received 91 votes, some prominent Democrats on trade in the House aren't sure how its provisions could move in their chamber, if Republicans don't agree to calling them up under suspension, which requires a two-thirds vote for passage.

It could take two-to-three years to resolve the massive Section 301 litigation now before the U.S. Court of International Trade, especially since it’s “highly likely” the losing side will appeal the case, Sandler Travis trade expert David Cohen, told his law firm's webinar Tuesday. 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.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 7-13.

The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

The Court of International Trade is set to hold oral arguments over a key relief question in the massive Section 301 litigation on June 17. Chief Judge Mark Barnett sent out four questions to the parties in a June 14 letter concerning the following: (1) how uncertainty over the court's authority to provide relief establishes that the plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm without this relief, (2) cases in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that CIT did not determine appropriate relief, (3) how the first question is articulated by the Supreme Court decision Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council and (4) the court's authority to enter a money judgment instead of reliquidation in the event the plaintiff's preliminary injunction prevails. The oral arguments will be held over the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure (see 2106070017).

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

Importers must file protests to preserve their ability to obtain refunds under exclusions from Section 301 tariffs, the Court of International Trade said in a June 11 decision. Dismissing a lawsuit from importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, Judge Miller Baker found the court did not have jurisdiction to hear their challenge since the importers did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties.

The Treasury Department published its spring 2021 regulatory agenda for CBP. The agenda includes some details about a proposal to change USMCA rules for non-preferential origin determinations for merchandise imported from Canada or Mexico. The proposal was previously disclosed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, within the Office of Management and Budget (see 2105120051), where it remains under review.

The U.S. Court of International Trade scheduled oral argument for 10 a.m. June 17 via Webex on the preliminary injunction Section 301 sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products seek to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco asked for oral argument last week (see 2106060001). They filed for the injunction April 23 after the government refused to stipulate that the plaintiffs will be entitled to refunds of liquidated entries if they win the litigation and the court declares the tariffs unlawful. DOJ opposes the injunction.