New Lawsuit Seeks Refund of Section Duties Under Exclusions Issued After Liquidation
An importer has filed suit at the Court of International Trade seeking refunds on Section 301 tariffs based on exclusions issued after the relevant entries liquidated. Trebbianno, which does business as Showroom 35, seeks refunds of $270,040.90 in duties it paid on its imports of handbags, wallets and purses that were subsequently included under retroactive exclusions issued by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
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.
Trebbianno had paid the tariffs beginning when they took effect on Sept. 24, 2018, well before USTR issued exclusions covering the goods on May 22, 2020 (see 2005220020). Those exclusions were retroactive to Sept. 24, 2018, but Trebbianno’s entries had liquidated in the meantime, and the 180-day protest period had already lapsed. Trebbianno seeks a court order directing CBP to reliquidate the entries so it can benefit from the exclusion.
USTR continues to issue retroactive exclusions well past liquidation time frames (see 2004020029), leaving importers with no way to benefit unless they had the foresight to request liquidation extensions (see 2005040045). That’s more unlikely for importers that would benefit from, but did not request, a given exclusion. Section 301 exclusions are applicable to all importers, and not just the ones that requested them.
Notably, the lawsuit was filed under CIT’s 28 USC 1581(i) jurisdiction, which is only available in situations in which none of the court’s other jurisdictional provisions apply. Chris Kane of Simon Gluck filed the lawsuit on behalf of Trebbianno. Though the protest period had expired by the time the exclusion had been issued, CIT’s denied protest jurisdiction isn’t relevant here because the exclusions were not a CBP decision, Kane said in a post on LinkedIn.
"We are hopeful other importers who find themselves in the perfect storm of having merchandise on a 301 list that is subsequently excluded after the protest period has expired will seek refunds,” Kane said.
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the complaint.