A group of importers involved in the litigation over the Section 301 tariffs sent a letter on May 7 to the White House urging a settlement in the case to "alleviate the economic and social harms these tariffs have caused to U.S. companies, U.S. workers and the overall U.S. economy." Led by the importers selected to serve as the test case for the litigation, HMTX Industries and Jasco Products Company, the companies told the White House they are seeking an end to the tariffs and a full refund of the "unlawfully" collected lists 3 and 4A duties collected from the companies. The case is currently making its way through the Court of International Trade.
Sections 301 and 232 tariffs have created greater exposure to trade-related False Claims Act allegations, Sidley Austin said in a May 10 analysis. Since President Donald Trump drastically increased CBP's workload via the tariffs, greater incentives now exist to skirt the tariffs through fraudulent activity such as transshipment or inappropriate country of origin analysis for imports. This incentive for fraudulent activity mirrors the ramped-up incentives for the FCA allegations by those seeking to obtain a financial award for calling out the illegal behavior, the firm said.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Cookware importer Meyer Corporation is appealing a Court of International Trade ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the importer can use the first sale valuation method for its cookware imports brought in from Thailand and China, according to a May 10 filing. The original March 1 CIT decision raised eyebrows after Judge Thomas Aquilino called into question the use of first sale with non-market economies. The Department of Justice recently cited the Meyer case in another lawsuit over first sale valuation (see 2104300049).
A Department of Justice defense of President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate a tariff exemption for bifacial solar panels would upend “well-settled principles of judicial review,” counsel for Solar Energy Industries Association argued in a May 7 response to DOJ's motion to dismiss. The DOJ argued that the Court of International Trade isn't permitted to review a president's factual determinations when determining if the tariff actions followed statute. Seeing as the president is only explicitly allowed to adjust previous safeguard measures to a product “after a majority of the representatives of the domestic industry submits to the President a petition requesting such reduction, modification, or termination on such basis, that the domestic industry has made a positive adjustment to import competition,” the questions of whether that petition was submitted and if domestic industry has indeed made the requisite adjustments have become central ones to the case.
Following the Department of Justice's first resolution of action under a new export control tool, greater efforts should be made to conduct export-related due diligence and act on those recommendations, according to a May 6 analysis from Sidley Austin. Merely conducting audits of exports and sanctions is not good enough anymore, Sidley said. Implementing audit recommendations and putting in place a robust process to receive, investigate and elevate whistleblower complaints should be a priority following the DOJ's settlement with German software company SAP SE.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Despite hotly contested litigation in the lower court, the Justice Department has been notably absent from an appeal of an antidumping case initially brought by exporter Goodluck India Limited. During May 3 oral argument in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, counsel for a group of tubing producers appealing the case refused to speculate on the government's lack of participation in the case but did point out that the Commerce Department did file its remand determination under respectful protest in the initial Court of International Trade proceedings (Goodluck India Limited, v. U.S. et al., Fed. Cir. # 2020-2017).
CNC Associates is being investigated after allegations of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties required on imported wooden cabinets and vanities and components from China, CBP said in a May 5 notice. The investigation stems from allegations filed under the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) by MasterBrand Cabinets, an Indiana cabinetmaker, CBP said. The company alleged that CNC evaded AD/CV duties using transshipment through Malaysia. MasterBrand is represented by Wiley Rein lawyer Timothy Brightbill, who represents several EAPA allegers.
The Commerce Department recently issued two scope rulings that found wheels and wheel components purportedly imported for passenger vehicle use are not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on steel wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in diameter from China (A-570-090/C-570-091). In scope rulings issued April 30 and May 3, the agency found that the wheels and wheel components are not intended for use on trailers.