Imported wood and metal seats met the requirements for Section 301 tariff exclusions but had those duties unlawfully levied upon them by CBP, Georgia-based furniture importer and wholesaler Belnick said in its Oct. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Belnick v. U.S., CIT # 23-00072).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Higher tariffs on some Chinese goods if Congress strips China of its permanent normal trade relations status would not be offset by moving production to other countries, and would instead increase prices for U.S. consumers, hurting low-income households most, according to a study released last week by the National Retail Federation.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 9-15:
CBP Withholding Communications on Past Classification Decisions, Importer Argues in Motion to Compel
The government should be ordered to produce unredacted documents for inspection by the judge and be ordered to disclose additional statements not reflecting protected deliberations in a case concerning the classification of intelligent window shade machines, Lutron Electronics said in its Oct. 13 motion to compel at the Court of International Trade. Lutron is seeking information related to former CBP employees and communications regarding decision-making in the classification process. Lutron said it fulfilled its obligation in attempting to resolve the dispute in good faith before filing its motion (Lutron Electronics v. U.S., CIT # 22-00264).
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act is one of the most powerful laws, "in what it's been able to achieve in such a short time," said Howard Mendelsohn, chief client officer for Kharon, a risk intelligence service provider. It was implemented so quickly that almost $2 billion worth of imports has been detained, at least temporarily.
Imported electronic bicycles were improperly classified by CBP and would have been excluded from Section 301 duties, Washington-based e-bike importer Arba International (doing business as Ariel Rider E-Bikes) said in its Oct. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Arba International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00215).
The U.S. asked for 55 more days to file its reply brief in the massive Section 301 litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which would make the brief due on Dec. 21. The extension request is the second of its kind from the government, after it received a 60-day extension from the court (see 2308140026). Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, Pratik Shah and Matthew Nicely of Akin Gump, opposed the extension "absent some medical, family, or similar intervening justification," arguing that thousands of companies are still paying the large Section 301 duties. The plaintiff-appellants consented to the first extension (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
Trade lawyers and importers are wondering how the anti-stockpiling element of a two-year pause on trade remedy circumvention deposits will be enforced.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: