The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 1 order granted the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's motion to voluntarily reconsider its decision to not reinstate an exclusion to the Section 301 duties on water coolers from China. Plaintiff DS Services of America, doing business as Primo Water North America, didn't oppose the motion. USTR said it wanted to reevaluate its decision given Prime Water's charges of the agency's alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and Natural Choice's request to withdraw its opposition to the reinstatement of the exclusion (DS Services of America v. U.S., CIT #22-00157).
Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., told U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai that they do not want the World Trade Organization Appellate Body to be resurrected. The WTO no longer has binding dispute settlement, because members can appeal into the void if they do not like the results of a case in Geneva.
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 26 order stayed the consideration of the merits of plaintiff Environment One's claims in a case seeking to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions until the court settles the U.S.'s motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DOJ moved to stay consideration of Environment One's claim its merchandise falls within the scope of the claimed exclusion, arguing the stay "would advance the interests of justice" and "could render litigation on the nature of plaintiff's imported merchandise to be unnecessary." Judge Mark Barnett agreed (Environment One v. U.S., CIT #22-00124).
Protests are not a prerequisite for Section 301 refunds on goods retroactively excluded from the duties on them and the government overstepped its authority in imposing such a requirement, Environment One argued in an Aug. 18 brief at the Court of International Trade (Environment One Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 22-00124).
Lawyers for the Section 301 test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products have until Sept. 14 to file their response to the Aug. 1 remand results on the lists 3 and 4A tariffs from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said an Aug. 15 scheduling order from the three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade. DOJ’s reply is due 44 days later, by Oct. 28, the order said. The two sides, in a joint status report, had agreed on the Sept. 14 date for the plaintiffs to respond to USTR’s remand results, but the government asked for 60 days to Nov. 14 to file its reply, while the plaintiffs asked for the government's reply within 30 days, by Oct. 14.
Akin Gump lawyers for the Section 301 test plaintiffs and DOJ agree that plaintiffs’ comments on the Aug. 1 lists 3 and 4A tariff remand results by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (see 2208020016) and a government response to those comments would aid the court’s evaluation of the remand results, the two sides said in a joint status report filed Aug. 15 in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the Court of International Trade. They propose that plaintiffs’ comments would be due Sept. 14 and DOJ’s response 30 days later, but the government says the plaintiffs are not entitled to file a reply to the government’s response, as plaintiffs want to do by Nov. 4, the report said. The sides also disagree on the page limits for any future filings, it said. Plaintiffs also are requesting oral argument on the remand results, but the government takes no position on the request.
A law firm representing a plaintiff in a classification case at the Court of International Trade says that its client has become unresponsive and will again ask the court for permission to withdraw its representation as counsel for Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co., Ltd., according to an Aug. 11 status report at CIT (Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT #20-03776). The firm, Rock Trade Law, has previously tried to withdraw its representation over alleged outstanding legal fees but Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, Rock Trade Law could not leave the case without substitute counsel first being identified (see 2207110070).
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.
Following the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's remand results at the Court of International Trade further justifying its lists 3 and 4A tariff action, it can be expected for the thousands of plaintiffs to argue that the explanation falls short in addressing the trade court's concerns, three Wiley Rein attorneys said in an Aug. 2 alert on the remand results. The plaintiffs will further argue that "the court should order the tariffs to be lifted," the law firm said.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative often found itself weighing the possible harm to U.S. consumers from the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs against the need to give the duties enough teeth to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, the agency said in its 90-page “remand determination,” filed Aug. 1 at the Court of International Trade (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052). Submitting its bid to ease the court's concerns over modifications made to the third and fourth tariff waves, USTR provided its justifications for removing various goods from the tariff lists ranging from critical minerals to seafood products.