DOJ broke the rules of the U.S. Court of International Trade when it filed its motion for case management procedures (see 2009240040) in the original Section 301 litigation docket and not those of the other complaints, argued Husch Blackwell in court papers (in Pacer) Friday. The firm sued (in Pacer) on behalf of 3A Composites USA and more than seven dozen other importers Sept. 18 and filed a second complaint (in Pacer) for Flexfab Horizons International and five other plaintiffs Sept. 21. Both complaints, like the more than 3,400 others, seek to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs and get the duties refunded. DOJ’s motion gave no explanation why it “believes it needs to rush to put the procedures it suggests in place, or why its failure to follow the Court’s rules is justified,” said Husch Blackwell. Failure to serve the motion on lawyers other than Akin Gump, representing HMTX Industries in the original complaint, should be grounds for denial, it said. The firm's clients agree a conference should be convened to “address the procedural issues” in the many cases, it said. But designation of a test case “will depend upon the nature of the complaints that have been filed, and whether all complaints are virtually identical or are different in material respects,” it said. “DOJ makes no claim that it knows how similar or dissimilar the complaints are and provides no analysis for the conclusion that they should be treated alike.” DOJ didn't respond to questions.

The Department of Justice ignored the rules of the Court of International Trade when it filed its motion for case management procedures (see 2009240026) in the original Section 301 litigation docket and not those of the other complaints, Husch Blackwell argued in court papers Sept. 25. The firm sued on behalf of 3A Composites USA and more than seven dozen other importers Sept. 18, and filed a second complaint for Flexfab Horizons International and five other plaintiffs Sept. 21. Both complaints, like the more than 3,400 others, seek to vacate the List 3 and List 4A tariffs and get the duties refunded. DOJ’s motion gave no explanation of why it “believes it needs to rush to put the procedures it suggests in place, or why its failure to follow the Court’s rules is justified,” Husch Blackwell said. The firm “only became aware of this Motion” through “a reference to it in the trade press, at which time we retrieved a copy of the Government’s Motion in the HMTX case from the Court’s docket in that separate case,” it said.

CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:​

CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:​

The U.S. Court of International Trade should use a case management approach for the thousands of Section 301 tariff lawsuits (see 2009220027), similar to the approach used in the harbor maintenance tax (HMT) litigation that ended in 1998, said DOJ Wednesday in a motion (in Pacer) for case management procedures. That should include the selection of a "test case" and a stay of all other cases involved, DOJ said. The filing on behalf of all the Trump administration defendants was DOJ's first since HMTX Industries filed suit Sept.10 to force refunds of tariffs paid on Lists 3 and 4A goods from China and get the tariff rulemakings vacated (see 2009110041).

While some individual companies in the medical and protective equipment sector testified that advantaging U.S. production will prevent shortages in the next pandemic, trade groups generally emphasized that stockpiling is the best solution, and that production needs to be globalized for the lowest risk. All were testifying across two days this week to the International Trade Commission, which was tasked with investigating the U.S. production and trade in goods needed for COVID-19 pandemic response, and supply chain challenges revealed in the crisis.

The International Trade Commission issued Revision 22 to the 2020 Harmonized Schedule on Sept. 22, implementing extensions to exclusions from List 3 and List 4 Section 301 tariffs that had been set to expire Sept. 20 (see 2009170037). The extended exclusions are to be filed under new subheadings 9903.88.58 and 9903.88.59, respectively. The ITC also made changes to an already extended exclusion, as directed by USTR in a notice issued Sept. 16 (see 2009150051). The ITC also made technical corrections to a General Note 11 provision on USMCA regional value content for passenger vehicles and light trucks, as well as a Chapter 98 note on the third-country fabric provision for the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

The roughly 800 complaints filed Tuesday into late Wednesday afternoon seeking to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and get the duties refunded paled in comparison with the 3,300-plus that inundated the U.S. Court of International Trade the previous five days (see 2009220027). The Tuesday complaints used Sept. 24, 2018, the date List 3 took effect, to argue “timeliness,” that they were within the two-year statutory window to file their claims. Virtually all the suits we examined alleged 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 alleged USTR violated the Administrative Procedure Act by running rulemakings that were sloppy and lacked transparency. Automotive supplier Brose North America and five subsidiaries introduced a novel argument Tuesday that Lists 3 and 4A were unlawful and unconstitutional forms of federal “revenue collection.” Trump administration statements show “an additional, if not the sole, reason and purpose” for Lists 3 and 4A “was to collect revenue for the federal general treasury,” said the complaint (in Pacer). “To the extent the List 3 and 4A additional duties were revenue collection measures, they were beyond the scope of actions USTR was authorized to take by the Trade Act.” Only Congress has the “constitutional power” to impose taxes, it said. USTR didn’t comment.

An auto parts company founded by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is among the thousands that filed a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade seeking a refund of tariffs paid on lists 3 and 4 of the Section 301 tariffs. International Automotive Components Group North America filed its suit Sept. 18, represented by solo practitioner Kyl Kirby. While Ross is no longer directly involved with IAC and is not named as defendant in the lawsuit, he has been supportive of the administration's broad use of tariffs. The Commerce Department didn't return a request for comment. A spokesperson for IAC said “we cannot comment on pending legal matters.”

The Court of International Trade should use a case management approach for the numerous Section 301 tariff lawsuits similar to the one used for litigation over the harbor maintenance tax (HMT), the Department of Justice said in a Sept. 23 filing. That should include the selection of a “test case” and a stay of all other cases involved, DOJ said. The filing marks DOJ's first since HMTX Industries filed suit to force refunds of Section 301 tariffs paid on lists 3 and 4 goods from China (see 2009110005).