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

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative concluded its one-year Section 301 investigation into the digital services tax policies of Austria, India, Italy, Spain, Turkey and U.K. by imposing and immediately suspending remedial tariffs against those countries, said the agency Wednesday. Putting the tariffs on hold for up to 180 days will give more time to complete the ongoing multilateral negotiations on international taxation at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and through the G20 process, it said. The U.S. “remains committed to reaching a consensus on international tax issues through the OECD and G20 processes,” said USTR Katherine Tai. “Today’s actions provide time for those negotiations to continue to make progress while maintaining the option of imposing tariffs under Section 301 if warranted in the future.” DSTs "undercut significant activity in multilateral negotiations and further fragment the international tax system,” said Information Technology Industry Council CEO Jason Oxman. ITI encourages all governments to "quickly withdraw" DSTs "and double down on their work to realize a multilateral, consensus-based agreement" through the OECD and G20, he said. The Computer & Communications Industry Association “welcomes USTR’s actions in the Section 301 investigations that show the continued commitment of the U.S. to the ongoing negotiations, while making clear that tariffs remain an option if discriminatory taxes continue,” said Policy Counsel Rachael Stelly.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., "are optimistic that a strong multilateral agreement can be reached to harmonize our international tax rules, end the race to the bottom and put a stop to digital services taxes," they said in a joint statement. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has threatened additional 25% tariffs on billions of dollars' worth of imports from European countries, Turkey and India over their proposed DSTs (see 2106020047), but has not implemented any of the Section 301 tariffs as the administration waits to see how negotiations go at both the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters June 2, "The new US administration ... has taken an approach of compromise and I think that really does mean a deal is within reach." She said that in Canada's view it's important that both the global minimum corporate tax and DST be solved together. The New York Times reported that a Treasury Department official was optimistic about negotiations, as well. The newspaper said that the OECD's outgoing secretary general said it's possible a deal on both DSTs and global taxation could be reached in October.

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.

DOJ filed a motion with the U.S. Court of International Trade Tuesday to dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” HMTX-Jasco can’t "establish" that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded its “statutory authority” under the 1974 Trade Act when it ratcheted up the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “as they were not arbitrary and capricious,” said the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52.

DOJ filed a motion with the U.S. Court of International Trade to dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” HMTX-Jasco can’t establish that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded “statutory authority” under the Trade Act when it ratcheted up the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, said the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52 (in Pacer). USTR implementation of the duties in response to China’s “increasingly aggressive and discriminatory trade practices” was “wholly discretionary and thus non-justiciable” under the Trade Act, said DOJ. China’s refusal to “cease its unlawful practices,” and instead pressure the U.S. to drop its Section 301 tariffs by adopting retaliatory measures, “revealed” that the “initial action” imposing the Lists 1 and 2 duties was “insufficient,” it said. Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX-Jasco declined comment Tuesday. Their Sept. 21 HMTX-Jasco complaint argued that the Trade Act doesn’t authorize the defendants “to litigate a vast trade war for however long, and by whatever means, they choose.”

Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories for May 24-28 in case you missed them. You can find any article by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade should dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation because the companies can’t establish that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded its authority, the Department of Justice said in a June 1 motion. The agency didn't overstep the 1974 Trade Act when it ratcheted up the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52 said.

The Department of Justice motioned the Court of International Trade late June 1 to dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” HMTX-Jasco can’t establish that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded its “statutory authority” under the 1974 Trade Act when it ratcheted up the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “as they were not arbitrary and capricious,” the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52 said.

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