Lead Case for Section 301 Actions Should Represent All Issues Involved, Lawyer Says
The Department of Justice motion for case management procedures to navigate the thousands of Section 301 tariff complaints before the Court of International Trade (see 2009240026) was “procedurally defective” because it wasn’t served on any other plaintiffs who filed cases involving the original HMTX Industries lawsuit, said an opposition Sept. 28 from Paulsen Vandevert, lawyer for importers GHSP and Brose North America. The more than 3,400 complaints seek to have the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings vacated and the paid duties refunded. GHSP, a supplier of electromechanical systems to the automotive industry, and Brose, a distributor of mechatronic parts for motorized car seats, are in “full agreement” with DOJ that the many complaints will require case management procedures, Vandevert said. But his clients “strongly object” to designating the three “first-filed” complaints as test cases, he said.
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.
The first three complaints were filed Sept. 10 and Sept.16. Vandevert filed for GHSP Sept. 18 and for Brose Sept. 22. “To determine which case or cases should be designated as the lead or test cases, the Court and all counsel involved must identify the cases that best represent all of the issues raised by all plaintiffs that would support invalidating the List 3 and 4A duties and justify their refund,” Vandevert said. “At this time it cannot be known with any certainty which cases, if any, do that.” DOJ didn't respond to questions.
Virtually all the suits allege the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its authority under the 1974 Trade Act when it imposed lists 3 and 4A as retaliatory strikes against China. They also allege USTR violated the Administrative Procedure Act by running rulemakings that were sloppy and lacked transparency. Vandevert's complaints on behalf of GHSP and Brose were among the few to layer on the additional argument that lists 3 and 4A were unlawful and unconstitutional forms of federal “revenue collection,” well beyond the “scope of actions USTR was authorized to take” under the Trade Act. Only Congress has the “constitutional power” to impose taxes, both complaints said.
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of Vandevert's filling.