More than 30 trade groups, led by the U.S.-China Business Council, are asking the Biden administration to retroactively restore product exclusions that expired last year, open a new exclusion application process "and continue negotiations with China to remove both nations’ counterproductive tariffs as soon as possible." In an Aug. 5 letter, the groups said China followed through on phase one promises to open to financial services providers and eliminate market access barriers for beef and some fruits and grains. They acknowledged that China is not on track to meet its purchase commitments, and said that China needs to be prodded to fully implement some other structural commitments, "particularly in the areas of biotechnology, patent linkage, services (including financial services), and protection of intellectual property rights."

An annual survey of U.S. firms with operations in China that are members of the U.S.-China Business Council found that about 80% of firms said that U.S.-China tensions affected their businesses. Of that group, about half said it caused lost sales in China; about a quarter said they lost sales due to Chinese retaliatory tariffs.

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

An annual survey of U.S. firms with operations in China that are members of the U.S.-China Business Council found that about 80% of firms said that U.S.-China tensions affected their businesses. Of that group, about half said it caused lost sales in China; about a quarter said they lost sales due to Chinese retaliatory tariffs.

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

Amazon threw its weight into Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade, alleging in a complaint Monday that the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs are unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act. It said they violate Administrative Procedure Act rules against sloppy rulemakings and are unconstitutional because only Congress, not the executive branch, can levy taxes. Amazon reported 2020 revenue of $386.1 billion and is believed now to be the second largest Section 301 plaintiff behind Walmart, which sued March 8. Walmart reported $559.2 billion in revenue for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31. Both companies are the relatively few among the roughly 6,500 importer plaintiffs to challenge the tariffs on constitutional grounds. Crowell & Moring is representing Amazon. Walmart’s attorneys are from Hogan Lovells. Both law firms sit on the 15-member plaintiffs’ steering committee formed in March to help manage the litigation.

Amazon threw its weight into Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade, alleging in a complaint Monday that the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs are unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act. It said they violate Administrative Procedure Act rules against sloppy rulemakings and are unconstitutional because only Congress, not the executive branch, can levy taxes. Amazon reported 2020 revenue of $386.1 billion and is believed now to be the second largest Section 301 plaintiff behind Walmart, which sued March 8. Walmart reported $559.2 billion in revenue for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31. Both companies are the relatively few among the roughly 6,500 importer plaintiffs to challenge the tariffs on constitutional grounds. Crowell & Moring is representing Amazon. Walmart’s attorneys are from Hogan Lovells. Both law firms sit on the 15-member plaintiffs’ steering committee formed in March to help manage the litigation.

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

Amazon threw its weight into Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade, alleging in a complaint Monday that the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs are unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act. It said they violate Administrative Procedure Act rules against sloppy rulemakings and are unconstitutional because only Congress, not the executive branch, can levy taxes. Amazon reported 2020 revenue of $386.1 billion and is believed now to be the second largest Section 301 plaintiff behind Walmart, which sued March 8. Walmart reported $559.2 billion in revenue for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31. Both companies are the relatively few among the roughly 6,500 importer plaintiffs to challenge the tariffs on constitutional grounds. Crowell & Moring is representing Amazon. Walmart’s attorneys are from Hogan Lovells. Both law firms sit on the 15-member plaintiffs’ steering committee formed in March to help manage the litigation.

Amazon threw its hefty weight into the Section 301 litigation inundating the Court of International Trade, alleging in a complaint that the lists 3 and 4A tariffs are unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act, violate Administrative Procedure Act rules against sloppy rulemakings, and are unconstitutional because only Congress, not the executive branch, has the power to levy taxes. Amazon reported 2020 revenue of $386.1 billion and is believed now to be the second-largest Section 301 plaintiff by revenue behind Walmart, which sued the government March 8. Walmart reported $559.2 billion in revenue for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31. Both companies are the relatively few among the roughly 6,500 importer plaintiffs to challenge the tariffs on constitutionality grounds. Crowell & Moring is representing Amazon. Walmart’s attorneys are from Hogan Lovells. Both law firms have representatives that sit on the 15-member plaintiffs’ steering committee formed in late March to help manage the massive litigation.