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

Best Buy Purchasing and Best Buy Health “have been adversely affected” by the Section 301 List 3 tariffs on Chinese imports, argued the subsidiaries Monday in a complaint (in Pacer) at the U.S. Court of International Trade. It was among the roughly 3,300 suits filed at the CIT since Thursday to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs, including 700 on Monday, the last filing day for importers to qualify for refunds if the actions are successful. There was some debate Tuesday whether the Monday deadline could be open to interpretation.

Best Buy Purchasing and Best Buy Health “have been adversely affected” by the Section 301 List 3 tariffs on Chinese imports, argued the subsidiaries Monday in a complaint (in Pacer) at the U.S. Court of International Trade. It was among the roughly 3,300 suits filed at the CIT since Thursday to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs, including 700 on Monday, the last filing day for importers to qualify for refunds if the actions are successful. There was some debate Tuesday whether the Monday deadline could be open to interpretation.

House Ways and Means Committee Trade Subcommittee Chairman Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., cast doubt on Congress voting to renew the Generalized System of Preferences trade benefits program before it expires, and on passing a new Miscellaneous Tariff Bill to cover imports in 2021 and 2022. He told an online audience at the Washington International Trade Association Sept. 23 that it's too soon to say whether a vote would be possible.

Best Buy Purchasing and Best Buy Health “have been adversely affected” by the Section 301 List 3 tariffs on Chinese imports, argued the subsidiaries Monday in a complaint (in Pacer) at the U.S. Court of International Trade. It was among the roughly 3,300 suits filed at the CIT since Thursday to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs, including 700 on Monday, the last filing day for importers to qualify for refunds if the actions are successful. There was some debate Tuesday whether the Monday deadline could be open to interpretation.

The U.S. Court of International Trade is deluged with hundreds of lawsuits that closely model a Sept. 10 challenge from Akin Gump and flooring importer HMTX Industries that seeks to force refunds of Section 301 tariffs paid on List 3 and 4A goods (see 2009110041). Such a torrent of filings is rare but not unheard of at the CIT, said lawyers involved in and following the litigation. The most obvious example was the yearslong litigation over the harbor maintenance tax (HMT), when exporters challenged the lawfulness of the fees at the CIT, they said.

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Sept. 14-18 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Whether the deadline has passed for court challenges to lists 3 and 4 of Section 301 tariffs of goods from China continues to be in question, lawyers following the case have said. While some have pegged the deadline to Sept. 21 based on a two-year statute of limitations from when the List 3 tariffs were published in the Federal Register (see 2009160056), other factors remain in play. Filing sooner rather than later is seen as preferable, the lawyers said.

The U.S. Court of International Trade should “set aside” the List 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports as “ultra vires” (“beyond the powers”) of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and order the duties refunded to U.S. importers, said tech companies Dana Innovations, Foster Electric, GN Audio, Scosche Industries and Sharp Electronics in five virtually identical complaints (in Pacer). They were among hundreds filed Thursday and Friday accusing USTR of overstepping Trade Act authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act. The suits attempt to seize on a potential tariff refund opportunity, if floor-tiling plaintiffs prevail in their case (see 2009110041). The complaints are “timely,” said the dozens of them we studied, under CIT’s residual jurisdiction provision, coming before Monday’s two-year anniversary of USTR’s List 3 Federal Register notice. Though the HMTX case “may be a long-shot, you can never say never,” blogged trade expert Ted Murphy with Sidley Austin. “If you want to preserve your right to a refund, in case the flooring companies’ action is successful, you need to put a case on file at the CIT.” Scosche suffered “an actual, imminent injury that is fairly traceable to the implementation, administration, and enforcement of List 3 and/or List 4,” said the car audio supplier. The harms “can be redressed by a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction” ruling USTR’s actions unlawful under the Trade Act and “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA, said Scosche. Akin Gump filed the original suit for HMTX using as a template the complaint it drafted for CTA two years ago. Other lawyers modeled their actions after that. USTR didn't comment.

The International Trade Commission recently issued Revision 21 to the 2020 Harmonized Tariff Schedule. This latest revision implements a cut to Section 232 quotas on Brazilian semi-finished steel that took effect Aug. 28 (see 2008310010), and changes to the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement rules of origin that had been part of the proclamation implementing USMCA at the end of July (see 2006300079). It also reflects extensions to List 4 Section 301 exclusions that had been set to expire Sept. 1 (see 2008310013), now filed under new tariff subheading 9903.88.57.