CIT Stays Case Seeking Section 301 Exemption Pending Resolution of Jurisdictional Issue
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 26 order stayed the consideration of the merits of plaintiff Environment One's claims in a case seeking to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions until the court settles the U.S.'s motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DOJ moved to stay consideration of Environment One's claim its merchandise falls within the scope of the claimed exclusion, arguing the stay "would advance the interests of justice" and "could render litigation on the nature of plaintiff's imported merchandise to be unnecessary." Judge Mark Barnett agreed (Environment One v. U.S., CIT #22-00124).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The action concerns 31 entries of fixed set-point pressure switches. Environment One entered the items under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8536.50.7000, which is an otherwise duty-free provision subject to Section 301 duties. CBP liquidated the entries, classifying them under subheading 8536.50.7000 and assessing the Section 301 duties. Environment One said the products at issue had been specifically excluded by the government retroactively through an exclusion granted to another company in September 2019.
At the trade court, the U.S. argued plaintiff's claims were "jurisdictionally defective." DOJ said the importer cannot claim jurisdiction under sections 1581(a) and (i) of 28 U.S.C. since the company did not specifically identify the protests it sought to challenge nor did it amend the summons beyond what the government claims is the 180-day limit (see 2207180033).
Environment One asked the court to deny the government's motion to dismiss and to order a refund of the retaliatory duties. The plaintiff argued the court has dual authority under 1581(a), because the case involves the "timely filing of protests," and under 1581(i), due to USTR's and CBP's statutory overreach of authority (see 2208240057). Consideration of whether the goods fall under the granted exception will now wait until the jurisdictional question is sorted out.