Thompson Hine trade attorney Dan Ujczo expects the only activity on trade in the first eight months of Joe Biden's presidency will be on issues either so small that they don't make a splash -- such as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill and the Generalized System of Preferences benefits program -- or on issues that have an immediate need for action.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 15-21:

Some major publishing houses, along with several other smaller publishers, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the legality of List 4A of the Section 301 tariffs on China goods. In a Feb. 17 filing, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, with others, said the 10% tariff extension to more than $120 billion in List 4A goods violated the Administrative Procedure Act -- a legal theory used by more than 3,500 other companies in similar cases against the tariffs. Also party to the suit are Bloomsbury Publishing, HarperCollins Christian Publishing, Holtzbrinck Publishers, Storey Publishing, Teacher Created Materials, The Experiment, Timber Press and Workman Publishing.

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Feb. 16-19 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Katharine Tai, President Joe Biden’s nominee for U.S. trade representative, enjoys broad bipartisan support in Congress through her work as a USMCA negotiator when she was House Ways and Means Committee chief trade counsel, Nicole Bivens Collinson, Sandler Travis president-international trade and government relations, told a Sports & Fitness Industry Association webinar Feb. 23. Tai’s Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing is set for 10 a.m. Feb. 25, and she’s going to be asked a lot of questions about the Biden administration’s posture toward the Section 301 tariffs on China, Collinson said. If all goes as well as expected with her confirmation process, Tai could be sworn in as USTR as soon as March 8, she said.

Even though a Section 301 investigation on Vietnamese currency manipulation found there was cause to believe the practice is burdening U.S. business (see 2101150046), Crowell & Moring lawyer Michael Bowen said the firm does not assign much additional risk to imports from Vietnam based on its currency practices. “Let’s call it ‘low-medium’ for now,” Bowen said in an email following up on a Feb. 17 Crowell & Moring webinar (see 2102170038). He said not only did the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative choose not to impose any tariffs in January at the time of its finding, it also “failed to signal any imminent measures in its notice.” Bowen also noted that the first time Commerce used currency undervaluation as a countervailable subsidy, on passenger tires, it was an average of 1.4% across the two companies under review. This “showed this may be more bark than bite for importers.”

The processing operations in China on frozen roasted eel from the U.S. or Europe are close enough to filleting to result in a substantial transformation, CBP said in a Dec. 16 ruling. Law firm Grunfeld Desiderio asked CBP on behalf of American Eel Depot for a further review of protest after multiple entries of the eels were entered as products of China and subject to Section 301 duties. The company argued that the eels should instead be of U.S. or European origin.

TCL’s North American smartphone subsidiary became one of the largest importers to join the massive Section 301 litigation when it filed a complaint (in Pacer) Friday in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Like the roughly 3,500 other lawsuits inundating the court, TCT Mobile (US) seeks to get the List 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods vacated and the duties refunded with interest. TCT's claims “accrued with each and every entry of products” with List 3 or 4A tariff exposure, said the company. The action was filed within two years of the date that TCT paid the duties, it said, satisfying the court’s statute of limitations requirement on the timeliness of complaints. “With a mobile handset product portfolio that includes TCL and Alcatel devices,” TCT is “the fourth largest handset manufacturer in North America,” it said. The complaint lists two dozen import categories for which TCT has List 3 or 4A tariff exposure. Most are for capital goods, packaging materials or components, including lithium-ion batteries. Finished smartphones that TCT imports from China under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s 8517.12.00 subheading are on List 4B. The Trump administration postponed indefinitely the 15% tariffs on List 4B goods from taking effect in December 2019 after reaching the phase one trade deal with China (see 1912130042).

TCL’s North American smartphone subsidiary became one of the largest importers to join the massive Section 301 litigation when it filed a complaint (in Pacer) Friday in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Like the roughly 3,500 other lawsuits inundating the court, TCT Mobile (US) seeks to get the List 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods vacated and the duties refunded with interest. TCT's claims “accrued with each and every entry of products” with List 3 or 4A tariff exposure, said the company. The action was filed within two years of the date that TCT paid the duties, it said, satisfying the court’s statute of limitations requirement on the timeliness of complaints. “With a mobile handset product portfolio that includes TCL and Alcatel devices,” TCT is “the fourth largest handset manufacturer in North America,” it said. The complaint lists two dozen import categories for which TCT has List 3 or 4A tariff exposure. Most are for capital goods, packaging materials or components, including lithium-ion batteries. Finished smartphones that TCT imports from China under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s 8517.12.00 subheading are on List 4B. The Trump administration postponed indefinitely the 15% tariffs on List 4B goods from taking effect in December 2019 after reaching the phase one trade deal with China (see 1912130042).

The U.S. Court of International Trade plans to “proceed first” on choosing a “representative sample” of test cases to manage the roughly 3,500 Section 301 complaints inundating the court, said an order (in Pacer) signed Tuesday by the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. All the suits seek to get the Lists 3 and 4A Chinese tariffs vacated and the duties refunded with interest. “The court expects that the number of sample cases identified will be small enough to permit the efficient disposition of this litigation while allowing the court to consider all claims raised by the various Plaintiffs,” said the order. “The court anticipates issuing a stay of all Section 301 cases assigned to the panel that are not selected to proceed as sample cases.” It set a March 19 deadline for plaintiff attorneys to submit a “coordinated proposal” on the test cases and to suggest lawyers to sit on a steering committee. Lawyers who think their complaint “would not be represented by a sample case proposal” or feel they belong on the steering committee have until March 26 to appeal, it said. Most court observers think the first-filed HMTX Industries/Jasco Products litigation is a shoo-in for one of the test cases. Virtually all the complaints argue the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its Section 301 authority under the 1974 Trade Act by imposing retaliatory tariffs against the Chinese and that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act by running tariff rulemakings that lacked transparency. A few complaints make the additional argument that USTR acted unconstitutionally by taxing importers.