The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “properly exercised its authority” under the Section 307 modification provisions of the 1974 Trade Act when it ordered the imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, the Court of International Trade ruled in an April 1 opinion. Test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, plus the more than 3,600 complaints that followed, sought to vacate the tariffs on grounds that lists 3 and 4A were unlawful without USTR launching a new Section 301 investigation.
The Court of International Trade dealt a blow to the over 3,600 lawsuits challenging Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs covering over $200 billion in goods, finding that the U.S. Trade Representative had the authority to impose the tariffs. In the highly-anticipated opinion, the court ruled against the plaintiffs' argument that the USTR could not impose Section 301 tariffs because the government was responding to retaliatory tariffs from China.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative sought confidential advice from “private-sector advisory committees,” believed to be under the Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) program managed jointly by USTR and the Commerce Department, before imposing the List 3 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, Stephen Vaughn, the agency’s then-general counsel, wrote then-USTR Robert Lighthizer on Sept. 17, 2018. The document was one of about a dozen “decision memos” spanning 488 pages that DOJ filed March 24 in the Section 301 litigation docket (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052) at the Court of International Trade as an “appendix” to oral argument held Feb. 1 (see 2202010059).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is wading into “unchartered waters” if it tries extending the lists 1 and 2 Section 301 tariffs on China past their four-year expiration deadlines under the 1974 Trade Act (see 2203140004), David Olave, a Sandler Travis associate and trade policy adviser, said in an email. List 1 is due to expire July 6, List 2 only seven weeks later on Aug. 23.
The following lawsuits were 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.