Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that he hopes that a technical fixes bill for USMCA can pass this month, but its passage is hung up on whether goods manufactured in foreign-trade zones should be able to benefit from USMCA if those goods meet the rules of origin.

Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories for Nov. 30-Dec. 4 in case you missed them. You can find any article by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 30 - Dec. 6:

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Nov. 30-Dec. 4 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that he hopes that a technical fixes bill for USMCA can pass this month, but its passage is hung up on whether goods manufactured in foreign-trade zones should be able to benefit from USMCA if those goods meet the rules of origin.

Importers must file protests to preserve their rights to Section 301 tariff exclusions issued after an entry has already liquidated, the Department of Justice said in a motion to dismiss a pair of lawsuits that seek to have the exclusions applied past the protest deadline. CBP’s failure to apply the exclusions was a protestable event, even if the exclusions did not exist at the time, and the Court of International Trade’s jurisdictional scheme means CIT can’t hear cases wherein the importer skipped the protest scheme, DOJ said.

Most observers expect the U.S. Court of International Trade to pick the first-filed Section 301 complaint from HMTX Industries and Jasco Products as the lead case, and to stay the roughly 3,700 other actions while HMTX is litigated, blogged law firm Neville Peterson Thursday. “More than two months after the HMTX case was filed, however, there has been surprisingly little action,” other than “some minor skirmishing from some plaintiffs,” it said. Some litigants favor picking a complaint other than HMTX as the lead case or joining it with other actions that raise constitutional challenges to the Section 301 tariffs, it said. Still others argue HMTX should proceed on its own, since the CIT “will not consider constitutional issues if cases can be decided on non-constitutional grounds,” it said. DOJ’s deadline to file answers to the HMTX action “technically” has lapsed, it said: Though the CIT likely won’t hold DOJ “in default” for failing to respond, “the urgency for establishment of a case management plan is increasing.” Plaintiffs' attorneys on their own have established an “informal” steering committee to manage the case, it said, saying the committee “confers with some regularity.”

Most observers expect the U.S. Court of International Trade to pick the first-filed Section 301 complaint from HMTX Industries and Jasco Products as the lead case, and to stay the roughly 3,700 other actions while HMTX is litigated, blogged law firm Neville Peterson Thursday. “More than two months after the HMTX case was filed, however, there has been surprisingly little action,” other than “some minor skirmishing from some plaintiffs,” it said. Some litigants favor picking a complaint other than HMTX as the lead case or joining it with other actions that raise constitutional challenges to the Section 301 tariffs, it said. Still others argue HMTX should proceed on its own, since the CIT “will not consider constitutional issues if cases can be decided on non-constitutional grounds,” it said. DOJ’s deadline to file answers to the HMTX action “technically” has lapsed, it said: Though the CIT likely won’t hold DOJ “in default” for failing to respond, “the urgency for establishment of a case management plan is increasing.” Plaintiffs' attorneys on their own have established an “informal” steering committee to manage the case, it said, saying the committee “confers with some regularity.”

The National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America is urging members to lobby their representatives for a provision that would allow companies to receive refunds for Section 301 duties paid when they learned too late that the product qualified for a tariff exclusion. If an entry had been liquidated before the exclusion was announced, CBP cannot refund the duties paid, even though the exclusions are designed to be retroactive. The group is hoping this provision can be included in the omnibus spending bill that may pass this month, it said.

Most observers expect the U.S. Court of International Trade to pick the first-filed Section 301 complaint from HMTX Industries and Jasco Products as the lead case, and to stay the roughly 3,700 other actions while HMTX is litigated, blogged law firm Neville Peterson Thursday. “More than two months after the HMTX case was filed, however, there has been surprisingly little action,” other than “some minor skirmishing from some plaintiffs,” it said. Some litigants favor picking a complaint other than HMTX as the lead case or joining it with other actions that raise constitutional challenges to the Section 301 tariffs, it said. Still others argue HMTX should proceed on its own, since the CIT “will not consider constitutional issues if cases can be decided on non-constitutional grounds,” it said. DOJ’s deadline to file answers to the HMTX action “technically” has lapsed, it said: Though the CIT likely won’t hold DOJ “in default” for failing to respond, “the urgency for establishment of a case management plan is increasing.” Plaintiffs' attorneys on their own have established an “informal” steering committee to manage the case, it said, saying the committee “confers with some regularity.”