The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

A group of retail trade groups, led by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative failed to adequately respond to comments when imposing its lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. Submitting an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the massive case against the duties, the retail representatives argued that USTR illegally relied on the president's discretion as a response to the comments, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

A group of retail trade groups, led by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative failed to adequately respond to comments when imposing its lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. Submitting an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the massive case against the duties, the retail representatives argued that USTR illegally relied on the president's discretion as a response to the comments, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

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.

Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. You can find any article by searching for the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's defense of its decisions to impose lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs "makes a mockery of a detailed law in which Congress circumscribed what USTR may do and on what basis," four administrative and trade law professors said in an amicus brief. Filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit July 24, the professors said USTR did not have the statutory authority to impose the retaliatory duties on $320 billion worth of Chinese goods because the statute did not allow retaliation to serve as the basis for the duties, nor did it allow the drastically larger price tag (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

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

The government correctly classified counterweights for mini-excavators as "backhoe" parts, rendering them ineligible for a Section 301 tariff exclusion, CIT Judge Jane Restani ruled in a July 21 opinion.

The Biden administration will complete its review of the Section 301 tariffs "this fall," U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai wrote to senators, and while she did not commit to any course of action, she wrote: "As part of the 4-Year Review of the Section 301 tariffs, USTR is reviewing the effectiveness of the tariffs in achieving the objectives of the investigation, as well as the effect of the tariffs on consumers, workers, and the U.S. economy at large. As part of this review, we are considering the existing tariffs structure and how to make the tariffs more strategic in light of impacts on sectors of the U.S. economy as well [as] the goal of increasing domestic manufacturing."

The government correctly classified counterweights for mini-excavators as "backhoe" parts, rendering them ineligible for a Section 301 tariff exclusion, CIT Judge Jane Restani ruled in a July 21 opinion.