China again extended its Section 301 retaliatory tariff exclusion period for sorbitol and other non-U.S. agricultural goods, the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service said in a May report. The exclusion period was scheduled to expire April 30 but now will remain in effect until Nov. 30. USDA said this is the seventh time China has extended the exclusion period for sorbitol, adding that the U.S. was the third-largest supplier of sorbitol to China in 2023, with Chinese imports reaching $1.2 million.

Bloomberg reported that the White House will release the Section 301 tariffs review next week, with higher tariffs on electric vehicles, batteries and solar cells. The report said it's unclear if there will be any tariff reductions, "though large-scale reductions aren’t expected."

The Court of International Trade ruled May 9 that an importer would recoup 22.4% of Section 301 duties it paid on an entry of kids’ erasable e-writing tablets from China.

The Court of International Trade ruled May 9 that an importer would recoup 22.4% of Section 301 duties it paid on an entry of kids’ erasable e-writing tablets from China.

The Court of International Trade on May 6 granted importer van Gelder's motion to set aside the dismissal of its customs lawsuit, which occurred due to a calendaring mistake from the company's counsel. Judge M. Miler Baker reopened the case and reset the deadline to remove the case from the Customs Case Management Calendar to April 30, 2025 (van Gelder v. United States, CIT # 21-00160).

Trade groups, companies and a union that represent the aluminum and steel sectors told the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that they need more protection from import competition, by expansion of the scope of Section 232 tariffs, and by re-negotiation of the rules of origin in both trade agreements and the Section 232 exclusion for Canada and Mexico.

In a May 9 ruling, Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly held that importer Kent Displays’ children’s e-writing tablets from China were finished electronic goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8543, as the government argued, not duty-free LCD screens under heading 9301, as the importer claimed. The holding mooted the dispute about whether Kent’s entry was exempt from Section 301 duties, as at the time the goods were imported, the tariff doesn't cover the relevant tariff subheading. Instead, the importer will owe a 2.6% duty (Kent Displays v. U.S., CIT # 20-00156).

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public May 9 sustained parts and remanded parts of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly remanded the Commerce Department's decisions regarding its "solar glass and air freight valuations and its "methodology for calculating" adverse facts available. The judge sustained exporter Trina Solar's separate rate status; valuation of electricity, ocean freight, backsheet and ethylene vinyl acetate for the plaintiffs, led by Jinko Solar Import and Export Co.; use of JA Solar Malaysia's financial statements to set surrogate financial ratios; deduction of Section 301 duties from U.S. price; and use of AFA against the plaintiffs.

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 6 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):

The U.S. swapped out its lead attorney in a case challenging CBP's denial of a Section 301 exclusion for its entries of "steel side protective attachments for motor vehicles, specifically side bars, fern bars, and bars." The government said Brandon Kennedy, a DOJ trade trial attorney, took the place of Edward Kenny, senior trial counsel at DOJ. The case was brought by importer MKI Enterprise Group, doing business as Winbo USA, to challenge CBP's denial of its protest seeking Section 301 exclusions the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted for "side protective attachments" (see 2404220057) (MKI Enterprise Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00131).