The U.S. on Dec. 13 confirmed it has received a request from China for consultations at the World Trade Organization over U.S. semiconductor export controls (see 2212120061) and said it opposes China’s move. “As we have already communicated to the [People’s Republic of China], these targeted actions relate to national security, and the WTO is not the appropriate forum to discuss issues related to national security,” Adam Hodge, spokesperson for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said in an emailed statement.
Although some observers thought the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's reaction to losing cases filed by Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and China at the World Trade Organization over its steel and aluminum tariffs marked a new era of rejecting the rules-based trading system, others who had served either in the WTO or the U.S. government said there was nothing too surprising about the U.S. reaction to its loss.
China took to the World Trade Organization Dec. 12 to challenge U.S. export control measures on semiconductor chips and other products, an official at China's Ministry of Commerce said, according to an unofficial translation. China referred the export restrictions to the trade body's dispute settlement mechanism, claiming the U.S. has been "generalizing the concept of national security."
CBP failed to pay a refund of Section 301 duties to Sonos for imports of wireless speakers and audio components for which exclusions had been granted, the importer argued in a Dec. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Due to this alleged failure, Sonos is seeking over $229,000 in refunds of the Section 301 duties paid (Sonos v. U.S., CIT #22-00337).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case in which it dismissed a suit seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit said that because a protest was not filed with CBP on the relevant entries, the court did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jursidiction, since jurisdiction would have existed under Section 1581(a) (see 2209060035). The appellants, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, then attempted to file for a rehearing, arguing that the issue was not directly delegated to CBP, in violation of the Constitution under the major questions doctrine. This bid was rejected (see 2212020073) (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The World Trade Organization issued a series of four rulings Dec. 9 finding that the U.S. Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs set by President Donald Trump violated global trade rules. In the landmark rulings, a three-person panel found that the duties violated Articles I, II, XI and XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The dispute panel said the tariffs, which the Trump administration said were needed to maintain U.S. national security, were not "taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations," as mandated by Article XXI(b)(iii) of national security protections, so the duties violate the GATT.
CBP unlawfully imposed 20% additional duties on bifacial solar panels given that the Court of International Trade found the underlying presidential proclamation to be "null and void," argued Trina Solar in a Dec. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00321).
DOJ briefs in the massive Section 301 litigation don't demonstrate that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative considered "major objections contemporaneously with its decisions" to impose the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, the plaintiffs argued in a Dec. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While USTR relies on presidential direction as the post hoc justification of its decisions, the court already ruled that out as a means of satisfying the Administrative Procedure Act, the brief said. To now satisfy the APA, the U.S. may take new action, but the lists 3 and 4A tariffs may not stay in place based on "conclusory and post hoc rationales," the plaintiffs said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 2 order, denied a petition from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings Co. for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a case over whether a protest is needed to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
Lawyers from BakerHostetler that represent the Conseil de l’industrie forestière du Québec and the Ontario Forest Industries Association are using a Commerce Department comment process for softwood lumber subsidies to argue once again that the countervailing duty case against Canadian lumber exports contradicts the USMCA Environment Chapter commitments and Biden administration environment and social justice priorities.