Dozens of firms, large and small -- along with trade groups from agriculture and manufacturing -- asked the U.S. Trade Representative to retain or even increase Section 301 tariffs on their competitors' exports. The companies that said the Section 301 tariffs are providing leverage and leveling the playing field included a number of politically important and large steel industry players, such as Nucor, U.S. Steel and Cleveland-Cliffs. Opponents argued in the same docket that the tariffs had not met their aim, were driving inflation, or having unintended consequences on manufacturers (see 2301180029).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 17 order dismissed two customs cases seeking the retroactive application of Section 301 exclusions. Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's finding in ARP Materials v. U.S., which said that an importer needs a protest with CBP to retroactively apply Section 301 exclusions (see 2209060035), the trade court dismissed the two cases -- from Poppin and Lighting Partners Jax. Both actions sought to establish jurisdiction at the court under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, as opposed to Section 1581(a) (Poppin v. United States, CIT # 20-00158) (Lighting Partners Jax v. United States, CIT # 20-03529).

Hundreds of companies, as well as trade groups from agriculture, retailers and manufacturing, have told the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that the Section 301 tariffs on $350 million in Chinese goods have not achieved their aim, have hurt U.S. businesses and, often, have not even moved production to other countries in Asia or to Mexico.

A study sponsored by five trade groups said that while tariffs of 7.5% to 25% on Chinese consumer goods imports have caused some trade diversion out of China, the primary result has been higher prices for customers.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 9-15:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Suzanne Clark, in her annual "State of American Business" speech Jan. 12, said that if the Biden administration fails to strike a balance on how to respond to China's economic posture, it "could undermine our security, our economy, our competitiveness, and our future."

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Jan. 11 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):

U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Suzanne Clark, in her annual "State of American Business" speech Jan. 12, said that if the Biden administration fails to strike a balance on how to respond to China's economic posture, it "could undermine our security, our economy, our competitiveness, and our future."

Three cases that were suspended pending the resolution of an action over whether protests are needed to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions continue to be stayed pending resolution of the massive Section 301 litigation, according to a Jan. 6 order from the Court of International Trade (Trebbianno v. U.S., CIT # 20-00135) (Westport v. U.S., CIT # 20-00190) (Uniflex Church Furnishings v. U.S., CIT # 20-03571).

A trade lawyer who has clients in the auto industry says that Mexico's and Canada's auto rules of origin arbitration win does not necessarily change sourcing and investment decisions, because automakers were already proceeding as if 100% of originating parts' value would be counted when calculating the regional value content of vehicles.