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

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.

The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

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

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 17-23:

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 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative will update three Section 301 tariff product exclusions in order to align the exclusions with changes made to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule on Jan. 27, USTR said in a notice posted to the agency website Jan. 25. The U.S. will implement broad changes to the HTS on Jan. 27, following amendments to the World Customs Organization's Harmonized System tariff nomenclature (see 2112230046).

The Coalition for a Prosperous America is asking the House Ways and Means Committee to move Democratic bills to curtail the use of de minimis and the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill and to pass the Democratic version of a Generalized System of Preferences benefits program bill. Whatever the committee recommends will be subject to a cross-Capitol compromise, as part of a larger China package called the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. The Senate’s Trade Act of 2021, part of that package, also included requirements to reopen a broad exclusion process for Section 301 tariffs on China.

Contrary to the Jan. 10 notice of supplemental authorities from Section 301 test case lawyers Akin Gump that two recent Court of International Trade decisions bolster their arguments that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative violated the 1974 Trade Act and 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it imposed the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports (see 2201110004), “neither decision is ‘pertinent’ nor ‘significant’ to plaintiffs’ claims,” responded DOJ Thursday in docket 1:21-cv-52. Section 307 of the Trade Act “unambiguously supports that the word ‘modify’ permits an increase in tariffs,” as the government contends in the Section 301 case, said DOJ. “To imply a limitation permitting only a decrease in tariffs would be inconsistent” with Section 307, “and would require adding language that Congress omitted” in the statute, it said. The APA issues discussed in a second decision, Invenergy Renewables v. U.S., in which the court found USTR violated the statute by not addressing “significant comments” raised by the public, “are easily distinguishable from this case,” said DOJ. The significant comments the court determined were unaddressed in Invenergy “concerned the USTR’s authority to withdraw a previously-granted exclusion,” plus “other statutory considerations,” it said. In the Section 301 case, USTR “plainly addressed its statutory authority for issuing List 3 and List 4 and the objective of eliminating China’s unfair trade practices,” it said. Neither decision “constitutes persuasive authority that supports granting judgment for the plaintiffs,” said DOJ. Oral argument is scheduled for Feb. 1.

Contrary to the Jan. 10 notice of supplemental authorities from Section 301 test case lawyers Akin Gump that two recent Court of International Trade decisions bolster their arguments that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative violated the 1974 Trade Act and 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports (see 2201110009), “neither decision is ‘pertinent’ nor ‘significant’ to plaintiffs’ claims,” the Department of Justice responded Jan. 20 in a letter. Section 307 of the Trade Act “unambiguously supports that the word ‘modify’ permits an increase in tariffs,” as the government contends in the Section 301 case, DOJ said. “To imply a limitation permitting only a decrease in tariffs would be inconsistent” with Section 307, “and would require adding language that Congress omitted” in the statute, it said. The APA issues discussed in a second decision, Invenergy Renewables LLC v. United States, in which the court found USTR violated the statute by not addressing “significant comments” raised by the public, “are easily distinguishable from this case,” DOJ said. The significant comments that the court determined were unaddressed in Invenergy “concerned the USTR’s authority to withdraw a previously-granted exclusion,” plus “other statutory considerations,” it said. In the Section 301 case, USTR “plainly addressed its statutory authority for issuing List 3 and List 4 and the objective of eliminating China’s unfair trade practices,” it said. “We respectfully submit” that neither decision “constitutes persuasive authority that supports granting judgment for the plaintiffs,” DOJ said. Oral argument is scheduled for Feb. 1.