The Coalition for Prosperous America, supporting Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on China, complained Tuesday about the "cadre of legal firms" suing the Trump administration over tariffs on goods from Lists 3 and 4A (see 2009220027). "The equivalent of tariff ambulance chasers" recruited the companies to file the lawsuits, blogged Kenneth Rapoza. The analyst mentioned Sandler Travis, which said in a recent client notice there's still time to file similar challenges, and noted the role of Sandler Travis lawyer Lenny Feldman as co-chair of the Customs and Border Protection's Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee. The blog post highlighted Akin Gump, which filed the first lawsuit, for being the largest lobbying operation in Washington and representing ZTE. The law firms didn't comment Wednesday.

The Section 301 lawsuits represent an important check on the government's imposition of tariffs despite the recent claims of a domestic industry group, a customs lawyer told International Trade Today. An industry analyst with the Coalition for a Prosperous America, Kenneth Rapoza, had disparaged lawyers representing companies challenging lists 3 and 4 of the Section 301 tariffs (see 2009300004). “Importers and Exporters, Domestic Producers and the population at large have a right to expect proper federal enforcement of Trade Laws,” Simon Gluck lawyer Chris Kane said in an email that he also posted on LinkedIn Oct. 1. “Attorneys play an indispensable role in seeing that happens. In the last BIG case, attorneys protected the rights of U.S. Exporters, including the members of Mr. Rapoza’s employer, to retrospective refunds of and prospective dispensation from the Export Harbor Maintenance Tax all the way to U.S. Supreme Court and thereafter. That’s how it works in our legal system,” he said.

The thousands of complaints seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and have the duties refunded warrant the Court of International Trade assigning the litigation to a three-judge panel instead of a single judge, Akin Gump said Sept. 30 on behalf of importers HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, in a court filing. The Department of Justice told Akin Gump it opposes the motion and will file a response, it said.

Over 150 exclusions from lists 1 and 2 of Section 301 China tariffs are set to end Oct. 2, after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not include them in two recently released notices of exclusion extensions. In its notice on List 1 exclusions, USTR granted extensions to nine out of the 96 exclusions listed in U.S. Note 20(x) and filed under tariff schedule subheading 9903.88.19. USTR's notice on List 2 exclusions announced extensions to 28 out of the 113 currently listed in U.S. Note 20(y) and filed under subheading 9903.88.20.

More than 150 exclusions from lists 1 and 2 Section 301 China tariffs are set to expire Oct. 2, after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative declined to extend them in the days prior to their expiration.

DOJ’s motion for case management procedures to navigate the thousands of Section 301 tariff complaints before the U.S. Court of International Trade (see 2009240040) was “procedurally defective” because it wasn’t served on any other plaintiffs who filed cases involving the original HMTX Industries lawsuit (see 2009110041), said an opposition (in Pacer) Monday from Paulsen Vandevert, lawyer for importers GHSP and Brose North America. The more than 3,400 complaints seek to have the Lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings vacated and the paid duties refunded. GHSP, a supplier of electromechanical systems to the automotive industry, and Brose, a distributor of mechatronic parts for motorized car seats, are in “full agreement” with DOJ that the many complaints will require case management procedures, said Vandevert. But his clients “strongly object” to designating the three “first-filed” complaints as test cases, he said. The first three complaints were filed Sept. 10 and Sept.16. Vandevert filed for GHSP (in Pacer) Sept. 18 and for Brose (in Pacer) Sept. 22. “To determine which case or cases should be designated as the lead or test cases, the Court and all counsel involved must identify the cases that best represent all of the issues raised by all plaintiffs that would support invalidating the List 3 and 4A duties and justify their refund,” said Vandevert. “At this time it cannot be known with any certainty which cases, if any, do that.” DOJ didn't respond to questions Tuesday. Virtually all the suits we examined allege the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its authority under the 1974 Trade Act when it imposed Lists 3 and 4A as retaliatory strikes against China. They also allege USTR violated the Administrative Procedure Act by running rulemakings that were sloppy and lacked transparency. Vandevert's complaints on behalf of GHSP and Brose were among the few to layer on the additional argument that Lists 3 and 4A were unlawful and unconstitutional forms of federal “revenue collection,” well beyond the "scope of actions USTR was authorized to take" under the Trade Act (see 2009230023). Only Congress has the “constitutional power” to impose taxes, said both complaints.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America, a domestic industry group that supports the Section 301 tariffs on China, complained about the “cadre of legal firms” suing the Trump administration over the tariffs on goods from lists 3 and 4 (see 2009210025). “The equivalent of tariff ambulance chasers” recruited the companies to file the lawsuits, Kenneth Rapoza, CPA industry analyst, said in a blog post Sept. 29. Rapoza specifically mentions Sandler Travis, which said in a recent client notice that there was still time to file similar challenges, and notes the role of Sandler Travis lawyer Lenny Feldman as the co-chair of CBP's Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee. The blog post also highlights Akin Gump, which filed the first lawsuit, for being the largest lobbying operation in Washington and representing Chinese telecom company ZTE Corporation. Sandler Travis didn't respond to a request for comment. Akin Gump declined to comment.

The Department of Justice motion for case management procedures to navigate the thousands of Section 301 tariff complaints before the Court of International Trade (see 2009240026) was “procedurally defective” because it wasn’t served on any other plaintiffs who filed cases involving the original HMTX Industries lawsuit, said an opposition Sept. 28 from Paulsen Vandevert, lawyer for importers GHSP and Brose North America. The more than 3,400 complaints seek to have the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings vacated and the paid duties refunded. GHSP, a supplier of electromechanical systems to the automotive industry, and Brose, a distributor of mechatronic parts for motorized car seats, are in “full agreement” with DOJ that the many complaints will require case management procedures, Vandevert said. But his clients “strongly object” to designating the three “first-filed” complaints as test cases, he said.

Thursday was the deadline for comments at the International Trade Commission on the public interest ramifications of the Tariff Act Section 337 exclusion order DivX seeks against LG, Samsung and TCL smart TVs and video processors from MediaTek, MStar and Realtek for allegedly infringing DivX adaptive bitrate streaming patents (see 2009160052). Realtek instead sought a 100-day ITC “adjudication” challenging DivX’s qualifications to bring a patent case because it’s “unlikely” DivX can satisfy “the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement” under ITC rules, said the chipmaker in Friday's posting (login required) in docket 337-3489.

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Sept. 21-25 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.