The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 5-11:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 28-Oct. 4:
The Section 301 lawsuits represent an important check on the government's imposition of tariffs despite the recent claims of a domestic industry group, a customs lawyer told International Trade Today. An industry analyst with the Coalition for a Prosperous America, Kenneth Rapoza, had disparaged lawyers representing companies challenging lists 3 and 4 of the Section 301 tariffs (see 2009300004). “Importers and Exporters, Domestic Producers and the population at large have a right to expect proper federal enforcement of Trade Laws,” Simon Gluck lawyer Chris Kane said in an email that he also posted on LinkedIn Oct. 1. “Attorneys play an indispensable role in seeing that happens. In the last BIG case, attorneys protected the rights of U.S. Exporters, including the members of Mr. Rapoza’s employer, to retrospective refunds of and prospective dispensation from the Export Harbor Maintenance Tax all the way to U.S. Supreme Court and thereafter. That’s how it works in our legal system,” he said.
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.
The Coalition for a Prosperous America, a domestic industry group that supports the Section 301 tariffs on China, complained about the “cadre of legal firms” suing the Trump administration over the tariffs on goods from lists 3 and 4 (see 2009210025). “The equivalent of tariff ambulance chasers” recruited the companies to file the lawsuits, Kenneth Rapoza, CPA industry analyst, said in a blog post Sept. 29. Rapoza specifically mentions Sandler Travis, which said in a recent client notice that there was still time to file similar challenges, and notes the role of Sandler Travis lawyer Lenny Feldman as the co-chair of CBP's Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee. The blog post also highlights Akin Gump, which filed the first lawsuit, for being the largest lobbying operation in Washington and representing Chinese telecom company ZTE Corporation. Sandler Travis didn't respond to a request for comment. Akin Gump declined to comment.
Nearly 1,000 lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 21-27 (see 2009220029 and 2009220014). For a full list, see the PACER database.
The Department of Justice ignored the rules of the Court of International Trade when it filed its motion for case management procedures (see 2009240026) in the original Section 301 litigation docket and not those of the other complaints, Husch Blackwell argued in court papers Sept. 25. The firm sued on behalf of 3A Composites USA and more than seven dozen other importers Sept. 18, and filed a second complaint for Flexfab Horizons International and five other plaintiffs Sept. 21. Both complaints, like the more than 3,400 others, seek to vacate the List 3 and List 4A tariffs and get the duties refunded. DOJ’s motion gave no explanation of why it “believes it needs to rush to put the procedures it suggests in place, or why its failure to follow the Court’s rules is justified,” Husch Blackwell said. The firm “only became aware of this Motion” through “a reference to it in the trade press, at which time we retrieved a copy of the Government’s Motion in the HMTX case from the Court’s docket in that separate case,” it said.
An auto parts company founded by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is among the thousands that filed a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade seeking a refund of tariffs paid on lists 3 and 4 of the Section 301 tariffs. International Automotive Components Group North America filed its suit Sept. 18, represented by solo practitioner Kyl Kirby. While Ross is no longer directly involved with IAC and is not named as defendant in the lawsuit, he has been supportive of the administration's broad use of tariffs. The Commerce Department didn't return a request for comment. A spokesperson for IAC said “we cannot comment on pending legal matters.”
More than 2,000 lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 14-20 (see 2009220029). For a full list, see the PACER database.
Companies and lawyers quickly followed the example of a vinyl tile importer that sued the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and said the imposition of Section 301 tariff lists 3 and 4 were beyond the agency's authority (see 2009110005). A variety of industries filed similar lawsuits over the past day in the hopes of preserving rights to any resulting refunds, with more filings likely. In addition to Akin Gump, which filed the original suit for tile importer HMTX Industries, Barnes Richardson, Grunfeld Desiderio, Rock Trade Law, Thompson Hine and Craven Trade Law are representing companies in the challenges. Companies that joined in the litigation include Fastenal, Otter Products, Nelco Products and the Apex Tool Group. While many lawyers recently said that a court filing is necessary soon to preserve the rights to any refunds, some questions remain about the specifics (see 2009160056).