Section 301 Plaintiffs ‘Eager’ to Speed Litigation; Opposition Expected on DOJ Case Management Motion
HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, the initial filers of the Section 301 litigation seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded, strongly oppose the Department of Justice’s prolonged briefing format and schedule proposed Oct. 19 in a motion for case management procedures (see 2010200022), Akin Gump said in a response Oct. 22 at the Court of International Trade. Under the government’s proposal, the parties would not begin to argue the “merits of this dispute” before 2022 or beyond, it said. “Given the ongoing harms to thousands of plaintiffs, among others, that protracted schedule is unacceptable.”
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 CIT instead should follow the harbor maintenance tax litigation as a model by staying all but the HMTX-Jasco complaint and ordering the parties to file “concurrent cross-motions for summary judgment addressing particular issues, including both jurisdictional and merits questions,” Akin Gump said. Adopting the harbor maintenance tax litigation’s cross-motions procedure “will best achieve the aims of resolving the key legal issues in an efficient manner,” it said. “Unnecessarily delaying resolution of this case for additional months or years -- with all the attendant litigation expenses and accruing duties that would entail -- is unwarranted.”
Since more than 3,500 importers have filed suit, many of whose entries have already been liquidated or will liquidate soon, it’s important “to confirm at the outset that the government will stipulate, as it has in other cases, that a refund remedy is available should plaintiffs prevail,” Akin Gump said. “Such relief remains critical to ensuring that these cases are handled efficiently, effectively, and with the least administrative burden possible.” DOJ hasn’t taken a position on refunds and indicated to plaintiffs it won’t do so until a test case is picked. DOJ didn’t respond to questions. “Plaintiffs are eager to move forward with this litigation,” Akin Gump said.
The DOJ motion on case management is likely to face broader opposition, law firm Thompson Hine said in a blog post. “This motion is expected to trigger a raft of challenges by plaintiffs’ counsel in all of the Section 301-related cases on such DOJ positions as the composition of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and the designation of appropriate test cases,” it said.
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the Akin Gump filing.