International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Jan. 4-8 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

A Republican congresswoman who has been the biggest critic of the Section 232 exclusion process told National Foreign Trade Council webinar listeners that, “I’m hoping for the best under this administration. We’ve suffered a lot under [Section] 232 and 301.” Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., added that “I can’t wait to see it start unraveling.” Walorski, who claimed Jan. 12 that “we were kind of in this battle” with President Donald Trump over the broadness of the China tariffs, voted against certifying Biden's Electoral College victory last week.

National Foreign Trade Council panelists addressing the future of U.S.-China relations agreed that the political climate won't allow President Joe Biden to reverse the Section 301 tariffs on China, even though they think those tariffs haven't been effective in achieving their goal of changing the competitive playing field with Chinese firms.

Section 301 tariffs on Vietnam aren't the answer to curb Hanoi's allegedly unfair devaluation of the dong against the dollar to the detriment of U.S. interests, wrote more than 200 company and trade association CEOs to President Donald Trump Thursday, as posted Friday in docket USTR-2020-0037. Their letter was reflective of widespread fear that the Trump administration will in its final days rush through a Federal Register notice imposing tariffs on Vietnam, even if the duties take effect after Jan. 20.

Section 301 investigations of India, Italy and Turkey digital service taxes found each country “discriminates against U.S. companies, is inconsistent with prevailing principles of international taxation” and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, said the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Wednesday. “USTR is not taking any specific actions in connection with the findings at this time but will continue to evaluate all available options,” it said. The Indian, Italian and Turkish embassies in Washington didn’t respond to questions Thursday.

Section 301 investigations of India, Italy and Turkey digital service taxes found each country “discriminates against U.S. companies, is inconsistent with prevailing principles of international taxation” and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, said the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Wednesday. “USTR is not taking any specific actions in connection with the findings at this time but will continue to evaluate all available options,” it said. The Indian, Italian and Turkish embassies in Washington didn’t respond to questions Thursday.

Section 301 investigations of India, Italy and Turkey digital service taxes found each country “discriminates against U.S. companies, is inconsistent with prevailing principles of international taxation” and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, said the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Wednesday. “USTR is not taking any specific actions in connection with the findings at this time but will continue to evaluate all available options,” it said. The Indian, Italian and Turkish embassies in Washington didn’t respond to questions Thursday.

The procedural stalemate in Section 301 lawsuits inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade is traceable to Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu and his staff “really looking at everything very carefully,” Grunfeld Desiderio's Ned Marshak told us Thursday. His firm has filed about 800 of the 3,700 complaints, including its first case Wednesday (in Pacer) establishing two-year timeliness based on its client’s 2019 import liquidation. The complaints seek to vacate the List 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get duties refunded. Most actions based timeliness within the two-year statute of limitations dating to when List 3 was in the Federal Register or when the tariffs took effect Sept. 24, 2018. Fewer based the two-year window dating to List 3 first payments. “At some point, the logjam is going to break,” said Marshak. As cases trickle in at about one a day, no case has been assigned to a judge, and there's no resolution about case management procedures, including which actions will be the designated test cases. Stanceu’s chambers didn’t respond to our questions. The CIT has “never seen anything like this before, and my sense is, they want to get it right,” said Marshak. “They want to look at all the complaints, because not all the complaints are the same.” Grunfeld Desiderio is advising clients “it’s not too late to file,” said Marshak. “There’s a fairly decent chance that you’re not totally out if you file now.” Establishing timeliness based on date of liquidation “is your last hope, and it’s not crazy,” he said. Marshak firmly believes “the litigation stays the same” under the Biden administration, he said. He doesn’t rule out plaintiffs approaching DOJ about possible settlements. The bigger question is what the new administration will do about Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, he said: “In my mind, this is not top priority. There are so many more important issues.”

In post-hearing comments over the argument that Vietnamese imports of illegal timber hurt U.S. furniture manufacturers, several parties said the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is not following the law, because it provided no concrete evidence of illegal timber in furniture exporters' supply chains.

The procedural stalemate in the Section 301 lawsuits inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade is traceable to Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu and his staff “really looking at everything very carefully,” Grunfeld Desiderio partner Ned Marshak said in an interview. His firm has filed about 800 of the 3,700 complaints, including a case filed Jan. 6 on behalf of flooring company R.A. Siegel based on a two-year statute of limitations running from a 2019 date of liquidation. All the complaints seek to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded. Most of the actions based timeliness within the two-year statute of limitations dating to when List 3 was published in the Federal Register or when the tariffs took effect on Sept. 24, 2018. Fewer based the two-year window on dating to when List 3 tariffs were first paid.