The Court of International Trade is considering asking certain plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation how they would like to proceed with claims that are distinct from the ones already decided by the trade court. Speaking at an April 11 status conference with the government and representatives of the 15-member steering committee for the plaintiffs, Judge Mark Barnett asked if the court should ask those plaintiffs whether or not they want to continue to litigate the distinct claims, and if the claims move forward, whether there is any reason to wait to resolve them (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed without prejudice a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking to impose a Section 301 exclusion on 31 entries, for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. While Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, the judge ultimately granted the U.S. motion to dismiss the case since the plaintiff failed to include key information about the merchandise at issue in the case's amended complaint. Barnett gave Environment One 10 days to file a second amended complaint lest the case be dismissed with prejudice.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking Section 301 exclusions on 31 entries for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, but he ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to include in the case's amended complaint key information about the merchandise at issue.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Boronized steel tubes, originally classified by CBP as duty-free U.S. goods returned after repairs, are correctly classified as unfinished steel tubes and subject to Section 301 tariffs, DOJ argued in its March 31 motion at the Court of International Trade. The government asked the court to deny a motion by importer Maple Leaf Marketing to dismiss the government's counterclaim (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United State, CIT # 20-03839).
Electronic goods with Chinese components such as notebooks, laptops and modems reimported to the U.S after undergoing repairs in Mexico are still subject to Section 301 tariffs on the repairs, even though the repairs are duty free under USMCA, CBP said in a February ruling.
Counterweights for mini-excavators are not parts for "backhoes" and should be excluded from Section 301 tariffs, manufacturer Norca argued in a March 29 motion at the Court of International Trade. Norca accused the government of obscuring and overcomplicating the distinction between the two equipment types (Norca Engineered Products v. U.S., CIT # 21-00305).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.