The Court of International Trade on Oct. 9 denied importer Retractable Technologies' motion to quash a prehearing deposition subpoena from the U.S. in the company's suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).
Think tank scholars from Cato Institute, a libertarian organization, say the best chance for preventing a 20% tariff on all non-Chinese imports and a 60% tariff on Chinese imports is for Congress to curtail the executive's power to impose tariffs during the upcoming lame-duck session.
Importer Retractable Technologies on Oct. 8 asked the Court of International Trade to quash the government's motion seeking corporate testimony from the company in Retractable's suit on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 tariff hike on needles and syringes. Retractable said an upcoming evidentiary hearing before the trade court will give the government the information it seeks and that reasonable time wasn't allowed for the company to respond to the subpoena (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Felicia Pullam, executive director of trade relations at CBP, defended the administration's proposal to end de minimis eligibility for goods subject to Section 301 tariffs as workable, arguing that charging a $2 fee per de minimis package will allow the agency to hire more staff to screen for contraband, and pushing back on industry arguments that collecting tariffs on low-value packages costs the agency more than that revenue.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 30 - Oct. 6:
Claimed price reductions related to changes in packaging costs for Chinese-origin packaged power units for electronic vaporizing devices may not be considered when determining the transaction value of the imported good, according to a recently released CBP ruling.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 7 sent a customs classification dispute on truck steps to a bench trial after finding that the undisputed facts are insufficient for conducting a principal use analysis on whether the products are "side protective attachments." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that while a Section 301 exclusion for "side protective attachments" is a principal use provision, and not a provision for an individual product, the court can't at this time properly assess the imports at issue under a principal use framework.
The U.S. and importer Roper Corp. settled a customs spat on the company's microwave ovens, with CBP agreeing to liquidate the goods without Section 301 duties (Roper Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00217).
Two 2021 cases arguing importers' products should have been excluded from Section 301 duties were dismissed by their Houston-based law firm Oct. 1 (Anatolia Tile & Stone, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00245; Bray International v. U.S., CIT # 21-00332).