Importer Dismisses Suit Seeking Section 301 Refunds, Challenging Protest Requirement
The Court of International Trade on June 30 granted importer Environment One's bid to dismiss its case seeking Section 301 refunds. The case concerns 31 entries classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8536.50.7000, a duty-free provision subject to Section 301 tariffs. Environment One filed a protest challenging the liquidation, claiming a Section 301 exclusion granted after entry. The company then took to the trade court to claim that the government violated the law by creating a protest requirement for Section 301 refunds despite that statute applying to only certain CBP decisions (see 2210260011) (Environment One v. United States, 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.
In the case, the U.S. questioned whether the fixed set point pressure switch imports met the criteria for the exclusion. The request was granted for pressure switches classified under subheading 8536.50.7000, though the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted the exclusion for "pressure switches described in statistical heading 8536.50.7000." Christopher Kane, counsel for Environment One, said in an email that the exclusion was based on "what they were" and not on their classification.
"Even if Plaintiff were able to prove the existence of a de facto established uniform practice in the absence of strict adherence to the tariff criteria, that would not meet the language of the exclusion, as a close reading of the three criteria described in 8536.50.7000 were not met," Kane said. "Among other things, the Plaintiff’s pressure switches were rated above the amperage allowed in the tariff description. In the interests of conserving the resources of the court and of the parties, Plaintiff and DOJ agreed to a stipulation of dismissal."