The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The massive Section 301 litigation that has inundated the U.S. Court of International Trade since the first cases were filed 16 months ago enters a critical new phase Feb. 1 when oral argument is scheduled for 10 a.m. EST before the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. Virtually all the thousands of complaints seek to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and get the duties paid refunded with interest on grounds that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its tariff-wielding authority under the 1974 Trade Act and violated protections in the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act (APA) against sloppy federal agency rulemakings.
The U.S. Court of International Trade is limiting in-person attendance at Tuesday’s oral argument in the Section 301 cases, “due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic" and to "facilitate social distancing in the courtroom,” said a procedural order signed Jan. 27 by Chief Judge Mark Barnett. An audio feed of the 10 a.m. proceeding will be livestreamed on YouTube, the order said. The court joined the federal judiciary’s “pilot” program in the fall to broadcast in-person proceedings on a dedicated YouTube channel, Barnett told a mid-November status conference (see 2111120069). The pilot enables anyone to listen in “without prior registration,” and “I’m sure there will be lots of folks intending to do that,” he said then. Thousands of Section 301 cases all seek to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and get the paid duties refunded with interest.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Jan. 21 and again Jan. 25 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
In-person oral argument in the Section 301 cases is scheduled for Feb. 1 at 10 a.m. in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the U.S. Court of International Trade, the court confirmed in a Jan. 25 amended courthouse activities report. A previously posted report dated Jan. 24 had the Section 301 oral argument missing from the schedule. Mindful of the enormous attention the litigation has generated through the thousands of cases filed, the court said in a Nov. 12 scheduling order that it “anticipates that in-person attendance will be limited” but that a remote audio feed would be provided. All the cases seek to have the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports vacated and the paid duties refunded with interest.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Contrary to the Jan. 10 notice of supplemental authorities from Section 301 test case lawyers Akin Gump that two recent Court of International Trade decisions bolster their arguments that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative violated the 1974 Trade Act and 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports (see 2201110009), “neither decision is ‘pertinent’ nor ‘significant’ to plaintiffs’ claims,” the Department of Justice responded Jan. 20 in a letter. Section 307 of the Trade Act “unambiguously supports that the word ‘modify’ permits an increase in tariffs,” as the government contends in the Section 301 case, DOJ said. “To imply a limitation permitting only a decrease in tariffs would be inconsistent” with Section 307, “and would require adding language that Congress omitted” in the statute, it said. The APA issues discussed in a second decision, Invenergy Renewables LLC v. United States, in which the court found USTR violated the statute by not addressing “significant comments” raised by the public, “are easily distinguishable from this case,” DOJ said. The significant comments that the court determined were unaddressed in Invenergy “concerned the USTR’s authority to withdraw a previously-granted exclusion,” plus “other statutory considerations,” it said. In the Section 301 case, USTR “plainly addressed its statutory authority for issuing List 3 and List 4 and the objective of eliminating China’s unfair trade practices,” it said. “We respectfully submit” that neither decision “constitutes persuasive authority that supports granting judgment for the plaintiffs,” DOJ said. Oral argument is scheduled for Feb. 1.