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.
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a 35% duty rate for StarKist's tuna salad pouches, agreeing with CBP's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, in a March 30 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade's opinion, Judges Kimberly Moore, Timothy Dyk and Jimmie Reyna said that the tuna pouches were "not minced" and "in oil," prompting their placement under subheading 1604.14.10.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 21-27:
The Court of International Trade dismissed a case brought by the U.S. government seeking the collection of over $5.7 million in unpaid duties from Katana Racing on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In a March 28 opinion, Judge Thomas Aquilino granted Katana's motion to dismiss based on an expired statute of limitations. The judge ruled that Katana was allowed to revoke an earlier statute of limitations waiver and concluded that without the waiver, any action by CBP is barred by the passage of time (United States v. Katana Racing Inc., d/b/a Wheel & Tire Distributors, CIT #19-00125).
The Court of International Trade ruled that CBP properly classified eight models of gloves imported by Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. as knit textile gloves, rather than as gloves made of plastics. In a March 25 opinion, Judge Timothy Stanceu sided with the government and ruled CBP correctly classified the gloves imported from China and South Korea in 2015 and correctly denied Magid's 2016 CBP protest (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT #16-00150).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 14-20:
The Court of International Trade on March 18 dismissed a lawsuit brought by a domestic pipe producer seeking to compel CBP to provide it with information related to an alleged duty evasion scheme by two importers. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that while the trade court did have jurisdiction to hear the case, Wheatland Tube Company improperly submitted its requests for information to CBP, and the agency properly rejected Wheatland's request to revoke a ruling letter.
The Court of International Trade ruled in a March 21 opinion that a customs spat over reimported swimsuits will head to phase two of trial. After sorting through whether a Warehousing Agreement between two related companies sufficed as a lease or similar use agreement during the first phase, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that this condition was satisfied for classification under a duty-free tariff provision for U.S. goods returned. The court will now see if the remaining conditions are satisfied in order to grant SGS Sports duty-free treatment of the reimported swimwear.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 7-13: