Importers filed a daily average of 1.25 new Section 301 cases in the 20 business days since Chief Judge Mark Barnett of the U.S. Court of International Trade signed his April 28 administrative order automatically staying any new complaints without assigning them to the three-judge panel he shares with Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves (see 2104290048). Court records show that’s slightly fewer than the 1.45 daily average of cases filed in the 20 days before Barnett’s order, all of which were also stayed but assigned to the panel. There’s no evidence suggesting Barnett’s order is reducing the influx of new Section 301 challenges, nor was that his intent. His rationale, he told an April 26 status conference, was his worry that a future case would create a "conflict" forcing the recusal of one or more of the judges (see 2104280035).

Plaintiffs' arguments on why they should be able to file a reply brief in discussions on a preliminary injunction in the massive Section 301 litigation disregard and misunderstand the law, as well as the Department of Justice's previous arguments, DOJ said in a May 26 response. DOJ deferred to the court's discretion whether they believe the plaintiff's proposed reply "aids the court's understanding of the disagreement between the [p]arties."

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

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

A group of steel importers, after suffering a defeat in the Court of International Trade, brought their broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the statute includes procedural requirements that were ignored in President Donald Trump's expansion of the tariffs. Filing its opening brief on May 24, the importers say that plain use of the mandatory word "shall" throughout Section 232 means the procedural requirements, such as an underlying report from the Commerce Department precipitating tariff action, are required. The steel importers also again argued that the commerce secretary's report is considered final agency action, ready for judicial review (Universal Steel Products, Inc. et al., v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1726).

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

Lawyers speaking at the Foreign Trade Association’s World Trade Week event said CBP is already drowning because of the consequences of the massive increase in post-importation tariff exclusions, and they're expecting it to get worse. Michael Roll, from Roll & Harris trade law firm, said he's betting that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative will reopen the exclusion process for Section 301 tariffs before summer's over. But he expects it will take until late 2021 or early 2022 for exclusions to be granted, which means many imports that entered after exclusions expired, or that never had exclusions, will have been liquidated by the time the importers learn they didn't have to pay the tariff.

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

No date has been scheduled yet for a vote on the China package championed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., but lengthy amendments from senators are continuing to flow in, many with trade implications.

“Good cause exists” for the U.S. Court of International Trade to grant Section 301 sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products leave to reply to DOJ’s opposition to the preliminary injunction plaintiffs seek to freeze liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure, said Akin Gump’s motion (in Pacer) filed Thursday in docket 1:21-cv-52.