The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 26 - May 2:

Tesla filed a lawsuit challenging the imposition of lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, becoming the latest company to join the litigation involving more than 3,700 other cases. In an April 30 complaint filed with the Court of International Trade, Tesla, as an importer of goods subject to the Section 301 tariffs, launched its lawsuit, which will be subject to an automatic stay pursuant to a recent administrative order from the court (see 2104290048). The order pauses all filings challenging the tariffs that are not placed under the HMTX and Jasco Products test case.

Nearly 600 pages comprise two administrative record indexes, one “non-confidential,” the other “confidential,” filed April 30 with the Court of International Trade by government defendants in the massive Section 301 litigation challenging the lawfulness of the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports. The roughly 3,600+ complaints seek to get the tariffs vacated and the duties refunded, alleging they run afoul of the 1974 Trade Act and violate 1946 Administrative Procedure Act protections against sloppy rulemakings.

Nearly 600 pages comprise two administrative record indexes, one “non-confidential” (in Pacer), the other “confidential” (in Pacer), filed Friday with the U.S. Court of International Trade by government defendants in the massive Section 301 litigation challenging the lawfulness of the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports. The roughly 3,600+ complaints seek to get the tariffs vacated and the duties refunded, alleging they run afoul of the 1974 Trade Act and violate 1946 Administrative Procedure Act protections against sloppy rulemakings.

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

Despite changes to patent, copyright and criminal law, China remains one of the top countries the U.S. is targeting for weak intellectual property protections, said the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Friday in its annual special 301 report (see 2004290059). China needs to strengthen such protection and enforcement, fully implement IP measures, stop forcing technology transfers to Chinese companies, open its market to foreign investment, and “allow the market a decisive role in allocating resources,” USTR said. “Severe challenges persist because of excessive regulatory requirements and informal pressure and coercion to transfer technology to Chinese companies, continued gaps in the scope of IP protection, incomplete legal reforms, weak enforcement channels, and lack of administrative and judicial transparency and independence.”

Despite changes to patent, copyright and criminal law, China remains one of the top countries the U.S. is targeting for weak intellectual property protections, said the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Friday in its annual special 301 report (see 2004290059). China needs to strengthen such protection and enforcement, fully implement IP measures, stop forcing technology transfers to Chinese companies, open its market to foreign investment, and “allow the market a decisive role in allocating resources,” USTR said. “Severe challenges persist because of excessive regulatory requirements and informal pressure and coercion to transfer technology to Chinese companies, continued gaps in the scope of IP protection, incomplete legal reforms, weak enforcement channels, and lack of administrative and judicial transparency and independence.”

Despite changes to patent, copyright and criminal law, China remains one of the top countries the U.S. is targeting for weak intellectual property protections, said the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Friday in its annual special 301 report (see 2004290059). China needs to strengthen such protection and enforcement, fully implement IP measures, stop forcing technology transfers to Chinese companies, open its market to foreign investment, and “allow the market a decisive role in allocating resources,” USTR said. “Severe challenges persist because of excessive regulatory requirements and informal pressure and coercion to transfer technology to Chinese companies, continued gaps in the scope of IP protection, incomplete legal reforms, weak enforcement channels, and lack of administrative and judicial transparency and independence.”

Trade groups whose members would have to pay foreign digital services taxes and trade groups whose members would have to pay if tariffs are hiked up to 25% on products from the countries imposing DSTs agree that DSTs are wrong and that the government should use all its persuasive power to convince countries like India, the United Kingdom and Spain not to impose these taxes. But the internet trade groups split on whether tariffs are the right tool to convince countries to roll back or never pass DSTs, and retailers and apparel and footwear companies say the tariffs will hurt American businesses and consumers more than the targeted exporters.

Chief Judge Mark Barnett of the U.S. Court of International Trade signed an administrative order Wednesday that will automatically stay any new complaints filed in the massive Section 301 litigation before they can be assigned to the three-judge panel he shares with Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. Any lawyer seeking to lift the stay of a new Section 301 case must first consult with the plaintiffs' steering committee at least three days before filing a motion and must show "good cause" for the exemption, said the order. The court expects to determine the "appropriate next steps" for dealing with the new cases after the first-filed HMTX-Jasco sample case is resolved, it said. Barnett told Monday's status conference that he has been "monitoring the ongoing trickle of additional 301 cases.” Though the court has continued assigning the new cases to the three-judge panel, and all the cases have been stayed until HMTX-Jasco is resolved, “I do worry about the possibility, at least, of some future case creating a conflict that could require one or more of us to have to recuse,” he said of himself and fellow panel members. New Section 301 complaints continue coming in at the rate of about one a day. All the roughly 3,700 cases allege the List 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods are unlawful and should be refunded. The 34-minute status conference was largely procedural and dispatched with a number of what Barnett called "housekeeping items." It was convened amid DOJ’s opposition to the refund relief importers seek, if they prevail in the litigation, on liquidated customs entries from China with List 3 and 4A tariff exposure (see 2104250002). HMTX-Jasco attorneys from Akin Gump seek a “protective” injunction to freeze unliquidated imports from being liquidated. DOJ’s response to the injunction motion is due May 14.