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

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, acting at the “direction” of President Donald Trump, had the authority under the 1974 Trade Act to impose the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, argued a Department of Justice "master answer" filed March 12 in one among a series of “anticipated defenses” it plans to mount against the massive litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade. The defenses were layered with a series of fallback arguments, some contradicting others. Lawyers asked about the filing said the tactic is common, based on the proven strategy that DOJ needs only one argument to stick.

Litigants challenging lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs have a “difficult hill to climb” in making a compelling case for why the tariffs should be lifted, a lawyer said. Speaking March 11 on a panel at Georgetown Law's 2021 International Trade Update on the courts' role in tariffs, Bradford Ward of King & Spalding called out the central claim used by one of the litigants: that the law does not permit the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to increase tariffs, only to “delay, taper or terminate such actions.” In the same provision of that law, modification of tariffs is authorized when the burden on U.S. commerce has increased or decreased, meaning the agency can increase or decrease tariffs, said Ward, who used to work at USTR and now represents domestic industry. “It would be illogical, from my perspective, for the statute to prohibit an increase in tariffs while recognizing the ability of USTR to modify via an increase in the burden. It doesn't seem coherent,” Ward said.

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

Walmart threw its hefty weight behind the Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade, joining thousands of other importers Monday in seeking to get the Lists 3 and 4A Chinese tariffs vacated and the duties refunded. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped 1974 Trade Act authority when it waged the retaliatory tariffs against the Chinese and violated the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act with rulemakings lacking transparency, said Walmart’s complaint (in Pacer), mirroring virtually all the 3,500 others filed since beginning in mid-September. Walmart also joined about two dozen smaller importers to argue the Lists 3 and 4A duties are “unlawful and unconstitutional” because only Congress has the power of taxation. The levies also “were enacted contrary to the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process of law,” said Walmart. From statements made by President Donald Trump and others in his administration, “an additional, if not the sole, reason and purpose for the List 3 additional duties was to collect revenue,” said the complaint. “To the extent the List 3 additional duties were revenue collection measures, they were beyond the scope of actions USTR was authorized to take by the Trade Act of 1974.” USTR didn’t comment Tuesday.

Walmart threw its hefty weight behind the Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade, joining thousands of other importers Monday in seeking to get the Lists 3 and 4A Chinese tariffs vacated and the duties refunded. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped 1974 Trade Act authority when it waged the retaliatory tariffs against the Chinese and violated the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act with rulemakings lacking transparency, said Walmart’s complaint (in Pacer), mirroring virtually all the 3,500 others filed since beginning in mid-September. Walmart also joined about two dozen smaller importers to argue the Lists 3 and 4A duties are “unlawful and unconstitutional” because only Congress has the power of taxation. The levies also “were enacted contrary to the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process of law,” said Walmart. From statements made by President Donald Trump and others in his administration, “an additional, if not the sole, reason and purpose for the List 3 additional duties was to collect revenue,” said the complaint. “To the extent the List 3 additional duties were revenue collection measures, they were beyond the scope of actions USTR was authorized to take by the Trade Act of 1974.” USTR didn’t comment Tuesday.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 1-7:

Walmart threw its massive weight behind the Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade when it joined thousands of other importers March 8 in seeking to get the lists 3 and 4A Chinese tariffs vacated and the duties refunded. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its 1974 Trade Act authority when it waged the retaliatory tariffs against the Chinese and violated the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act by running tariff rulemakings that lacked transparency, the retail giant’s complaint said, mirroring virtually all the 3,500 others filed since the beginning in mid-September. Walmart also joined the roughly two dozen small importers that argue that the list 3 and 4A duties also are “unlawful and unconstitutional” because only Congress has the power of taxation. The tariffs also “were enacted contrary to the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process of law,” Walmart said. From statements made by President Donald Trump and other officials in his administration, “an additional, if not the sole, reason and purpose for the List 3 additional duties was to collect revenue for the federal general treasury,” the complaint said. “To the extent the List 3 additional duties were revenue collection measures, they were beyond the scope of actions USTR was authorized to take by the Trade Act of 1974 and, therefore, were unlawful.” Hogan Lovells is representing Walmart in the case. USTR didn’t comment.

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from March 1-5 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The next three Fridays will mark some important deadlines in the Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade after months of inertia. New complaints continue trickling in at the rate of about one a day to join the roughly 3,500 on file since beginning in mid-September, virtually all seeking to get the Lists 3 and 4A Chinese tariffs vacated and the duties refunded. Many thousands more importers are represented in the filings, including many consumer tech companies -- Bose, Clarion, Denon, Gibson, Harman, Jasco and Voxx among them.