CIT Remands Section 301 List 3 and 4A to USTR for Explanation

The Court of International Trade issued its first decision on the merits of the claim that the United States collected Section 301 duties on List 3 and List 4A products collected illegally. The decision is available from the Court. In short, the Court affirmed that the President and USTR had legal authority to impose the duties. However, the Court also found that USTR failed to follow the required notice and comment procedures. Thus, the Court ordered that USTR provide a fuller response to the comments it received relating to List 3 and List 4A.

The Court first had to determine whether it has the authority to review the USTR’s action at all. The government argued that the decision to impose the additional duties was immune from judicial review because it is a presidential (rather than agency) action or is a political decision, which is an area left to the President. The Court found that the issues before it do not relate to presidential discretion or policy questions but to whether USTR and the President properly applied the statute. Given that narrow focus, the Court held it can review the actions.

Regarding whether the President had authority to impose the List 3 and List 4A duties, the Court sided with the Government. The Court held that the President had authority to increase the initial Section 301 remedy in response to China’s retaliation because the retaliation was within the broad scope of the USTR’s report identifying China’s unfair trade practices. List 3 and List 4A, therefore, were not new actions that required new authorizations.

The Court then turned to a question of whether the USTR followed the required notice and comment procedures. The background for this is that the Government published Federal Register Notices seeking public comment and held public hearing before imposing the duties on goods covered by List 3 and List 4A. The Notices resulted in thousands of comments, most of which argued against imposing the additional duties, some of which addressed other concerns. Once an agency receives comments, the law requires that it explain how it resolved any significant problems raised in the comments and did so in a manner consistent with the applicable law. On this point, the Court found that USTR failed to explain its actions in light of the comments with detail sufficient to allow the Court to understand why USTR acted as it did. 

Having found this procedural error, the issue for the Court was to determine the appropriate consequences. Plaintiffs argued that the USTR’s failure to follow the required procedure means that List 3 and List 4A are void and the duties should be refunded. The Court, however, decided to send the original USTR decisions back to the agency with instructions that USTR provide a better explanation of how it considered and acted in relation to the comments. USTR must submit the response to the Court on or before June 30. When it does that, USTR must elaborate on its prior explanation and may not provide any new rationale for the actions. 

If it finds USTR’s further explanation adequately addresses the comments, the Court will likely uphold List 3 and List 4. If the USTR is not able to adequately address the comments, the Court can void the duties. Either result will lead to an appeal to the Federal Circuit. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more