Paul Gluckman

The U.S. Court of International Trade is limiting in-person attendance at Tuesday’s oral argument in the Section 301 cases, “due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic" and to "facilitate social distancing in the courtroom,” said a procedural order signed Jan. 27 by Chief Judge Mark Barnett. An audio feed of the 10 a.m. proceeding will be livestreamed on YouTube, the order said. The court joined the federal judiciary’s “pilot” program in the fall to broadcast in-person proceedings on a dedicated YouTube channel, Barnett told a mid-November status conference (see 2111120069). The pilot enables anyone to listen in “without prior registration,” and “I’m sure there will be lots of folks intending to do that,” he said then. Thousands of Section 301 cases all seek to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and get the paid duties refunded with interest.

Contrary to the Jan. 10 notice of supplemental authorities from Section 301 test case lawyers Akin Gump that two recent Court of International Trade decisions bolster their arguments that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative violated the 1974 Trade Act and 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports (see 2201110009), “neither decision is ‘pertinent’ nor ‘significant’ to plaintiffs’ claims,” the Department of Justice responded Jan. 20 in a letter. Section 307 of the Trade Act “unambiguously supports that the word ‘modify’ permits an increase in tariffs,” as the government contends in the Section 301 case, DOJ said. “To imply a limitation permitting only a decrease in tariffs would be inconsistent” with Section 307, “and would require adding language that Congress omitted” in the statute, it said. The APA issues discussed in a second decision, Invenergy Renewables LLC v. United States, in which the court found USTR violated the statute by not addressing “significant comments” raised by the public, “are easily distinguishable from this case,” DOJ said. The significant comments that the court determined were unaddressed in Invenergy “concerned the USTR’s authority to withdraw a previously-granted exclusion,” plus “other statutory considerations,” it said. In the Section 301 case, USTR “plainly addressed its statutory authority for issuing List 3 and List 4 and the objective of eliminating China’s unfair trade practices,” it said. “We respectfully submit” that neither decision “constitutes persuasive authority that supports granting judgment for the plaintiffs,” DOJ said. Oral argument is scheduled for Feb. 1.

Two “pertinent and significant” decisions at the Court of International Trade support the arguments of Section 301 test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its Trade Act of 1974 modification authority by imposing the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and that it violated protections in the Administrative Procedure Act against sloppy rulemakings, Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco said in a notice of supplemental authorities relevant to the Section 301 litigation. Both decisions were handed down after Akin Gump filed its final written brief in the Section 301 case on Nov. 15 (see 2111160010).

The 1974 Trade Act “does not authorize” the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the “original” Section 301 lists 1 and 2 tariffs on Chinese goods under the “circumstances present” in the lists 3 and 4A duties, argued Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, in their final written brief Nov. 15 at the Court of International Trade before the litigation moves to oral argument Feb. 1, 2022. HMTX and Jasco, plus the thousands of complaints their September 2020 lawsuit sparked, seek to get the lists 3 and 4A tariffs thrown out and the paid duties refunded with interest.

The three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade presiding over the Section 301 litigation scheduled oral argument in the HMTX Industries-Jasco Products sample case for Feb. 1, 2022, at 10 a.m. in the court's Ceremonial Courtroom in New York, an order entered Nov. 12 in master case docket 21-cv-52 said. Chief Judge Mark Barnett had asked lawyers from both sides at a virtual status conference Nov.10 to email the court by Nov. 12 about schedule conflicts they had in January and February.

Lawyers for the Department of Justice and Section 301 sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, “in preparation for scheduling oral argument” in the case, have until Nov. 12 to email the Court of International Trade about any “scheduling conflicts that would preclude their attendance at the hearing” in January or February of 2022, an order entered on Nov. 10 said. Akin Gump attorneys for HMTX and Jasco are scheduled to file their final papers with the court on Nov. 15. the Nov. 10 order appeared to dash any possibility oral argument would be held before year-end, as some lawyers involved in the litigation had expected, as an outside chance. Several thousand complaints have been filed in the massive Section 301 litigation since September 2020, all seeking to have the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports declared unlawful and any paid duties refunded with interest (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).

Acer America and its repair and service subsidiary joined the massive Section 301 litigation, alleging in a Nov. 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative ran afoul of the 1974 Trade Act and the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports. Acer’s complaint cites tariff exposure to 16 classifications of goods on List 3 and four on List 4A, including for PCs, speakers and projectors. Acer’s law firm is Akin Gump, which crafted the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint in September 2020 that springboarded the roughly 3,800 nearly identical actions to follow, all seeking to have the tariff rulemakings vacated and the duties refunded with interest. HMTX-Jasco is now the designated sample case, and Akin Gump’s deadline is Nov. 15 for filing papers supporting its Aug. 2 motion for judgment on the agency record. It’s the final entry on the court’s April 13 scheduling order. Oral argument is expected next, possibly as soon as December (Acer America Corporation v. U.S., CIT #21-00575).

The government stands by its arguments that the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods are “presidential actions” that are “unreviewable” by the court, the Department of Justice said in a late filing on Oct. 1 at the Court of International Trade (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).

The U.S. Court of International Trade vacated the repository requirement imposed in its July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order for importers to request suspending the liquidation of customs entries from China with Section 301 lists 3 or 4A tariff exposure, said an order signed Sept. 8 by Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. The government will liquidate those entries “in the ordinary course” and refund the money with interest if the tariffs are declared unlawful, “should that decision become final and conclusive, including all appeals,” it said. The court also vacated the PI order’s temporary restraining order period when no entries could have liquidated, with or without the repository.

The three-judge panel presiding over the Section 301 litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade appeared during a brief, 27-minute status conference Sept. 1 to be edging closer to resolving the two-month impasse over suspending the liquidation of customs entries with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure.