The U.S. Court of International Trade scheduled oral argument for 10 a.m. June 17 via Webex on the preliminary injunction Section 301 sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products seek to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco last week asked for oral argument (see 2106070017). They filed for the injunction April 23 after the government refused to stipulate that the plaintiffs will be entitled to refunds of liquidated entries if they win the litigation and the court declares the tariffs unlawful. The Justice Department opposes the injunction.
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
Importers must file protests to preserve their ability to obtain refunds under exclusions from Section 301 tariffs, the Court of International Trade said in a June 11 decision. Judge Miller Baker dismissed a lawsuit from importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings Co., finding the court did not have jurisdiction to hear their challenge since they did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties. The importers had filed their lawsuits under CIT's residual Section 1581(i) jurisdiction, but that provision was unavailable because the importers were actually challenging a CBP classification decision, CIT said.
In the June 9 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 55, No. 22), CBP published a proposal to revoke and modify rulings on portable food allergen detection device, single-use pods and a starter kit.
Akin Gump lawyers for the Section 301 sample case plaintiffs, HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, asked the Court of International Trade to hold oral argument on the preliminary injunction they seek to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. “This unprecedented litigation concerns billions of dollars, over 3,800 separate lawsuits, and an even larger number of individual plaintiffs,” their June 4 motion said. They filed for the injunction April 23 after the government refused to stipulate that the plaintiffs will be entitled to refunds of liquidated entries if they win the litigation and the court declares the tariffs unlawful. The government opposes the injunction and stands by its refusal of the stipulation due to the “uncertainty” of the case law on refund relief, it said May 14 (see 2105170007).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 3 and 4 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):
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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 some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Department of Justice motioned the Court of International Trade late June 1 to dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” HMTX-Jasco can’t establish that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded its “statutory authority” under the 1974 Trade Act when it ratcheted up the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “as they were not arbitrary and capricious,” the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52 said.