The U.S. Court of International Trade should “set aside” the List 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports as “ultra vires” (“beyond the powers”) of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and order the duties refunded to U.S. importers, said tech companies Dana Innovations, Foster Electric, GN Audio, Scosche Industries and Sharp Electronics in five virtually identical complaints (in Pacer). They were among hundreds filed Thursday and Friday accusing USTR of overstepping Trade Act authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act. The suits attempt to seize on a potential tariff refund opportunity, if floor-tiling plaintiffs prevail in their case (see 2009110041). The complaints are “timely,” said the dozens of them we studied, under CIT’s residual jurisdiction provision, coming before Monday’s two-year anniversary of USTR’s List 3 Federal Register notice. Though the HMTX case “may be a long-shot, you can never say never,” blogged trade expert Ted Murphy with Sidley Austin. “If you want to preserve your right to a refund, in case the flooring companies’ action is successful, you need to put a case on file at the CIT.” Scosche suffered “an actual, imminent injury that is fairly traceable to the implementation, administration, and enforcement of List 3 and/or List 4,” said the car audio supplier. The harms “can be redressed by a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction” ruling USTR’s actions unlawful under the Trade Act and “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA, said Scosche. Akin Gump filed the original suit for HMTX using as a template the complaint it drafted for CTA two years ago. Other lawyers modeled their actions after that. USTR didn't comment.

The U.S. Court of International Trade should “set aside” the List 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports as “ultra vires” (“beyond the powers”) of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and order the duties refunded to U.S. importers, said tech companies Dana Innovations, Foster Electric, GN Audio, Scosche Industries and Sharp Electronics in five virtually identical complaints (in Pacer). They were among hundreds filed Thursday and Friday accusing USTR of overstepping Trade Act authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act safeguarding transparent rulemakings.

The Court of International Trade is deluged with hundreds of lawsuits that closely model a challenge from Akin Gump and HMTX Industries that seeks to force refunds of Section 301 tariffs paid on lists 3 and 4 goods from China (see 2009110005). Such a torrent of filings is rare but not unheard of at the CIT, lawyers involved with and following the litigation said. The most obvious example was the yearslong litigation over the harbor maintenance tax (HMT), they said.

More than a dozen classifications of tech goods from China eligible for "preferential" tariff treatment under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on free trade remain subject to applicable Trade Act Section 301 tariffs, Customs and Border Protection ruled. It's dated last Friday and was released by CBP this week. "The country of origin of the subject goods for purposes of Section 301 is China and therefore, subject to the Section 301 duties," said CBP. The goods include hard drives, modems, switchers, routers and power supplies.

More than a dozen classifications of tech goods from China eligible for "preferential" tariff treatment under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on free trade remain subject to applicable Trade Act Section 301 tariffs, Customs and Border Protection ruled. It's dated last Friday and was released by CBP this week. "The country of origin of the subject goods for purposes of Section 301 is China and therefore, subject to the Section 301 duties," said CBP. The goods include hard drives, modems, switchers, routers and power supplies.

More than a dozen classifications of tech goods from China eligible for "preferential" tariff treatment under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on free trade remain subject to applicable Trade Act Section 301 tariffs, Customs and Border Protection ruled. It's dated last Friday and was released by CBP this week. "The country of origin of the subject goods for purposes of Section 301 is China and therefore, subject to the Section 301 duties," said CBP. The goods include hard drives, modems, switchers, routers and power supplies.

Light-emitting diode lamps imported by Grakon for incorporation into automobiles originate in the country where the lights inside the lamps were assembled, Mexico, rather than the country of the lamps’ final assembly, and are not subject to Section 301 tariffs on products from China, CBP said in a recent ruling.

Companies and lawyers quickly followed the example of a vinyl tile importer that sued the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and said the imposition of Section 301 tariff lists 3 and 4 were beyond the agency's authority (see 2009110005). A variety of industries filed similar lawsuits over the past day in the hopes of preserving rights to any resulting refunds, with more filings likely. In addition to Akin Gump, which filed the original suit for tile importer HMTX Industries, Barnes Richardson, Grunfeld Desiderio, Rock Trade Law, Thompson Hine and Craven Trade Law are representing companies in the challenges. Companies that joined in the litigation include Fastenal, Otter Products, Nelco Products and the Apex Tool Group. While many lawyers recently said that a court filing is necessary soon to preserve the rights to any refunds, some questions remain about the specifics (see 2009160056).

More than 300 exclusions from lists 1 and 2 Section 301 China tariffs are set to expire Sept. 20, after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative declined to extend them in the run-up to their expiration.

Over 300 exclusions from Lists 1 and 2 of Section 301 China tariffs are set to end Sept. 20, after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not include them in two notices of exclusion extensions released Sept. 17. In its notice on List 1 exclusions, USTR granted extensions to 62 out of the 310 exclusions listed in U.S. Note 20(q) and filed under tariff schedule subheading 9903.88.14. USTR's notice on List 2 exclusions announced extensions to 17 out of the 86 currently listed in U.S. Note 20(v) and filed under subheading 9903.88.17.