3 Cases Suspended Under ARP/Harrison, Now Suspended Under Massive Section 301 Litigation
Three cases that were suspended pending the resolution of an action over whether protests are needed to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions continue to be stayed pending resolution of the massive Section 301 litigation, according to a Jan. 6 order from the Court of International Trade (Trebbianno v. U.S., CIT # 20-00135) (Westport v. U.S., CIT # 20-00190) (Uniflex Church Furnishings v. U.S., CIT # 20-03571).
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.
In the ARP Materials v. U.S. and Harrison Steel Castings v. U.S. cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said an importer needed to file a protest to establish jurisdiction in a case looking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions (see 2209060035). Cases from importers Trebbianno, Westport and Uniflex, also seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 exclusions, were filed before this decision. After the ARP/Harrison decision, though, the actions were stayed in light of the massive Section 301 litigation.
Simon Gluck's Chris Kane, counsel for the importers, said in a LinkedIn post that if the plaintiffs would have "acceded to" the government's motion to dismiss following the resolution of the ARP/Harrison decision, they would have potentially been "surrendering any rights to refunds they would have in the event of a favorable final decision in" the larger Section 301 case. "Score one for the importers," the post said.