The Court of International Trade in its April 1 remand order gave the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “one final opportunity” to cure its Administrative Procedure Act violations and "flesh out" the reasons why it rejected the 9,000+ comments it received in the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariff rulemakings, without devising “new rationales for dismissing them,” Akin Gump lawyers for lead Section 301 plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products said in comments on USTR’s Aug. 1 remand determination. “USTR’s response to that directive flunks the Court’s test,” they said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
The Court of International Trade “bent over backwards” to allow the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to comply with its Administrative Procedure Act obligations in its imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods when it remanded the duties to the agency for further explanation on the rationale for the actions it took in the context of the comments it received, said an amicus brief filed Sept. 14 in the massive Section 301 litigation from the Retail Litigation Center, CTA, the National Retail Federation and four other trade associations. With USTR’s “non-responsive” answer to the remand order, the time has come for the court “to impose the normal remedy for unlawful agency action” and to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, it said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
Plaintiffs Reserve Right to Oppose US' Inadvertent Liquidations in Solar Panel Tariff Exclusion Case
Plaintiffs in a case challenging President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels reserved all their rights to the extent that the plaintiffs are affected by the U.S.'s inadvertent liquidations of the entries at issue in the action, the plaintiffs said in a Sept. 13 reply brief. The reserved rights include, but are not limited to, "opposing the Government’s actions and legal authority to void liquidations without court approval and without providing specificity that would allow for meaningful comment, the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).
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 government notified the Court of International Trade that it has inadvertently liquidated bifacial solar panels following a CIT order in December that suspended liquidation. The government told the court that CBP is taking steps to correct the mistake and that it has communicated with the plaintiffs and non-parties affected by the liquidations.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative often found itself weighing the possible harm to U.S. consumers from the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs against the need to give the duties enough teeth to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, the agency said in its 90-page “remand determination,” filed Aug. 1 at the Court of International Trade (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052). Submitting its bid to ease the court's concerns over modifications made to the third and fourth tariff waves, USTR provided its justifications for removing various goods from the tariff lists ranging from critical minerals to seafood products.
The U,S, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit needs to reconsider its dismissal of a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, plaintiff-appellants in the case, led by USP Holdings, argued in a July 22 motion for reconsideration. The plaintiff-appellants said that the court "failed to consider" the effect of the Administrative Procedure Act on the standard of review issue when finding that the scope of judicial review given to the Commerce Secretary's determination of threat to impair national security was identical to that given to the president, whose findings are not subject to the APA (USP Holdings v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1726).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
President Donald Trump's move to revoke an exclusion to Section 201 safeguard measures on bifacial solar panels was "particularly pernicious," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Clean Power Association argued in a July 12 amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The amici said that safeguard measures should be applied in a way that's "predictable, circumscribed, and allows for reasonable business planning," and that Trump's move violated these principles. Revoking the exception injected uncertainty into government-imposed safeguard measures, which will have a ripple effect in the economy, potentially making inflation and supply chain crises worse, they said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).