HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, first plaintiffs to file in the massive Section 301 litigation seeking to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded, strongly oppose DOJ’s prolonged briefing format and schedule proposed Monday in a motion for case management procedures (see 2010200020), said Akin Gump in a response (in Pacer) Thursday at the U.S. Court of International Trade. The government proposed the parties not begin to argue the “merits of this dispute” before 2022 or beyond, it said. “Given the ongoing harms to thousands of plaintiffs, among others, that protracted schedule is unacceptable.” The CIT instead should follow the harbor maintenance tax (HMT) litigation as a model by staying all but the HMTX-Jasco complaint and ordering the parties to file “concurrent cross-motions for summary judgment addressing particular issues, including both jurisdictional and merits questions,” said Akin Gump. Adopting the HMT litigation’s cross-motions procedure “will best achieve the aims of resolving the key legal issues in an efficient manner,” it said. “Unnecessarily delaying resolution of this case for additional months or years -- with all the attendant litigation expenses and accruing duties that would entail -- is unwarranted.” Since more than 3,500 importers filed suit, many of whose entries have already liquidated or will liquidate soon, it’s important “to confirm at the outset that the government will stipulate, as it has in other cases, that a refund remedy is available should plaintiffs prevail,” said Akin Gump. “Such relief remains critical to ensuring that these cases are handled efficiently, effectively, and with the least administrative burden possible.” DOJ hasn’t taken a position on refunds and indicated to plaintiffs it won’t do so until a test case is picked. DOJ didn’t respond to questions. DOJ’s motion for case management procedures is likely to face broader opposition, blogged law firm Thompson Hine Wednesday. "This motion is expected to trigger a raft of challenges by plaintiffs’ counsel in all of the Section 301-related cases on such DOJ positions as the composition of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and the designation of appropriate test cases," it said.

HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, first plaintiffs to file in the massive Section 301 litigation seeking to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded, strongly oppose DOJ’s prolonged briefing format and schedule proposed Monday in a motion for case management procedures (see 2010200020), said Akin Gump in a response (in Pacer) Thursday at the U.S. Court of International Trade. The government proposed the parties not begin to argue the “merits of this dispute” before 2022 or beyond, it said. “Given the ongoing harms to thousands of plaintiffs, among others, that protracted schedule is unacceptable.” The CIT instead should follow the harbor maintenance tax (HMT) litigation as a model by staying all but the HMTX-Jasco complaint and ordering the parties to file “concurrent cross-motions for summary judgment addressing particular issues, including both jurisdictional and merits questions,” said Akin Gump. Adopting the HMT litigation’s cross-motions procedure “will best achieve the aims of resolving the key legal issues in an efficient manner,” it said. “Unnecessarily delaying resolution of this case for additional months or years -- with all the attendant litigation expenses and accruing duties that would entail -- is unwarranted.” Since more than 3,500 importers filed suit, many of whose entries have already liquidated or will liquidate soon, it’s important “to confirm at the outset that the government will stipulate, as it has in other cases, that a refund remedy is available should plaintiffs prevail,” said Akin Gump. “Such relief remains critical to ensuring that these cases are handled efficiently, effectively, and with the least administrative burden possible.” DOJ hasn’t taken a position on refunds and indicated to plaintiffs it won’t do so until a test case is picked. DOJ didn’t respond to questions. DOJ’s motion for case management procedures is likely to face broader opposition, blogged law firm Thompson Hine Wednesday. "This motion is expected to trigger a raft of challenges by plaintiffs’ counsel in all of the Section 301-related cases on such DOJ positions as the composition of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and the designation of appropriate test cases," it said.

HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, first plaintiffs to file in the massive Section 301 litigation seeking to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded, strongly oppose DOJ’s prolonged briefing format and schedule proposed Monday in a motion for case management procedures (see 2010200020), said Akin Gump in a response (in Pacer) Thursday at the U.S. Court of International Trade. The government proposed the parties not begin to argue the “merits of this dispute” before 2022 or beyond, it said. “Given the ongoing harms to thousands of plaintiffs, among others, that protracted schedule is unacceptable.” The CIT instead should follow the harbor maintenance tax (HMT) litigation as a model by staying all but the HMTX-Jasco complaint and ordering the parties to file “concurrent cross-motions for summary judgment addressing particular issues, including both jurisdictional and merits questions,” said Akin Gump. Adopting the HMT litigation’s cross-motions procedure “will best achieve the aims of resolving the key legal issues in an efficient manner,” it said. “Unnecessarily delaying resolution of this case for additional months or years -- with all the attendant litigation expenses and accruing duties that would entail -- is unwarranted.” Since more than 3,500 importers filed suit, many of whose entries have already liquidated or will liquidate soon, it’s important “to confirm at the outset that the government will stipulate, as it has in other cases, that a refund remedy is available should plaintiffs prevail,” said Akin Gump. “Such relief remains critical to ensuring that these cases are handled efficiently, effectively, and with the least administrative burden possible.” DOJ hasn’t taken a position on refunds and indicated to plaintiffs it won’t do so until a test case is picked. DOJ didn’t respond to questions. DOJ’s motion for case management procedures is likely to face broader opposition, blogged law firm Thompson Hine Wednesday. "This motion is expected to trigger a raft of challenges by plaintiffs’ counsel in all of the Section 301-related cases on such DOJ positions as the composition of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and the designation of appropriate test cases," it said.

Talks toward a comprehensive trade agreement with the United Kingdom would likely continue under a Joe Biden administration, though when a deal could be reached is unclear, K&L Gates partner Stacy Ettinger said during a webinar on how trade policy would change if there is an administration change after the election, or progress if there is a second Trump administration. Ettinger, a staffer for Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., before joining the private sector, was joined by former White House trade staffer Clete Willems, now at Akin Gump, during a webinar Oct. 20 hosted by American University's law school.

Law firm Husch Blackwell has no objection to a Department of Justice proposal to designate the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint as a test case in the massive Section 301 litigation, but “there is no reason that it should be chosen as the only test case without further analysis,” it said Oct. 22 in a partial opposition to the government’s Oct. 19 motion for case management procedures (see 2010200022). It told the Court of International Trade that it represents 75 “individually named plaintiffs” of the “approximately 6000 plus” importers seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded.

FBB Federal Relations partner Ray Bucheger told members of the Pacific Coast Council of Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Associations that while the message on the Hill is discouraging on extending current Section 301 exclusions, his firm is working on legislation for the companies that received exclusions too late to get refunds for the tariffs paid.

An advance notice of proposed rulemaking on customs broker continuing education requirements (see 2009140033) is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Oct. 28, said John Leonard, CBP executive director-trade policy and programs, during the virtual Western Cargo Conference on Oct. 23. The advance notice will be available for preview on the public inspection site on Oct. 27, he said. “It's a great ANPRM, if I do say so myself.”

IRobot anticipates “going back to a world” of 25% Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-sourced goods once its List 3 tariff exclusion expires Dec. 31, CEO Colin Angle said on a Q3 call Oct. 21. The pandemic delayed iRobot’s “original plans” to shift most U.S.-bound production to Malaysia by the end of 2020 to reduce or eliminate its Chinese tariff exposure (see 2002070006), instead pushing the Malaysia transition “well into 2021,” he said.

Talks toward a comprehensive trade agreement with the United Kingdom would likely continue under a Joe Biden administration, though when a deal could be reached is unclear, K&L Gates partner Stacy Ettinger said during a webinar on how trade policy would change if there is an administration change after the election, or progress if there is a second Trump administration. Ettinger, a staffer for Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., before joining the private sector, was joined by former White House trade staffer Clete Willems, now at Akin Gump, during a webinar Oct. 20 hosted by American University's law school.

HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, the initial filers of the Section 301 litigation seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded, strongly oppose the Department of Justice’s prolonged briefing format and schedule proposed Oct. 19 in a motion for case management procedures (see 2010200022), Akin Gump said in a response Oct. 22 at the Court of International Trade. Under the government’s proposal, the parties would not begin to argue the “merits of this dispute” before 2022 or beyond, it said. “Given the ongoing harms to thousands of plaintiffs, among others, that protracted schedule is unacceptable.”