Written by Susan Kohn Ross On Friday, March 17, 2023, the Court of International Trade issued its decision in the pending 301 litigation. That decision can be found here. The judges agreed the actions by the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) were adequate and found the tariffs valid for the products on Lists 3 and 4. [Lists 1 and 2 were never challenged.] It is entirely … Continue reading 301 Judgment by CIT – Not Down for the Count – Yet!
Written by Deeba Fahami On December 28, 2022, the Biden administration announced new COVID-19 restrictions for travelers from China, citing mounting concerns of the ongoing COVID-19 surges and the lack of adequate data being reported from the People’s Republic of China (China). These restrictions will affect all air passengers two years and older boarding flights to the United States originating from China, Hong Kong, and … Continue reading U.S. to Impose New COVID-19 Restrictions for Air Travelers from China
Written by Susan Kohn Ross Updated 5:30pm PST, November 8, 2022. The 301 litigation at the Court of International Trade remains pending. The Government has filed its “Reply to comments on [R]emand [Determination]” responding to comments filed by Plaintiffs. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s will file their reply which is due by December 5, 2022. Once that filing takes place, the three judge panel will let litigants know … Continue reading Recent China 301 Activities – USTR Questions Released
Written by Susan Kohn Ross One of the hopes of the trade community when the Biden Administration was sworn in was that “something” would be done about the China 301 tariffs. To this point, there are no changes. In fact, while there was optimism at the outset, the reality is that no one in D.C. has a “better” vehicle for trying to rein in China’s … Continue reading China Tariffs Continue – Per USTR
Written by Susan Kohn Ross In discussing the current state of the 301 tariffs, the first place to start is with the pending litigation. There, the Government has filed its cross-motion to dismiss responding to what plaintiffs had previously argued. The next step is for the panel of judges assigned to these 3800+ cases to decide if they will order oral argument or decide the … Continue reading China Tariff – 301 Update
Written by Susan Kohn Ross There are conflicting opinions as to when the deadline (called the statute of limitations) expires to file a complaint at the Court of International Trade and seek refunds on any China 301 List 3 duties which were paid. We know the statute of limitations is two years – but when does it start? Some argue the statute expired on Friday, … Continue reading China 301 Duty Refunds – What Is Next?
Last week, in Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co., Case No. S249923 (Cal. April 2, 2020), the California Supreme Court held that the Hague Service Convention does not apply to the state’s arbitration enforcement proceedings where transnational parties agree to informal notice of suit methods. The Court concluded that when these parties agree to submit to California arbitration, the California Arbitration Act ultimately governs service of process. And because the Act allows parties to enter into informal service arrangements, formal service of process procedures – including the Convention’s service mechanisms – are waived. This result should prompt foreign parties to re-evaluate the pros and cons of submitting to arbitration in California and agreeing to include informal notice of suit provisions in their underlying contracts.
The outcome presents a notable exception to the norms that foreign entities typically rely on in the Hague Convention. Generally, the Convention requires parties to serve notice of suit through each signatory’s Central Authority, which in turn carries out service consistent with their respective country’s domestic laws. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in Water Splash v. Menon, 137 S. Ct. 1504 (2017), additional methods of service are also allowable if the receiving country does not expressly prohibit it and if the domestic law of the forum country provides for it. One benefit of the Convention is that it protects international litigants from being hauled into a foreign court based on application of inconsistent and unfamiliar rules for providing them with notice of suit.
China and the U.S. signed the so-called Phase 1 deal on January 15, 2020. Much has been said in the general press and elsewhere about this deal. What does it really accomplish for international traders?
First, there is nothing said about the tariffs imposed by either the U.S. or China. White House briefers did say the tariff on the goods on List 4A would be reduced soon, and a pre-publication version of the proposed Federal Register notice was published on January 16, 2020. It can be found here. Those tariffs will be reduced from 15% to 7.5% on February 14, 2020. When it came to the tariffs China has imposed, no one has any idea what specifically will happen, only that given the commitments made by China, those tariffs will have to come down. Exactly when is anyone’s guess. Continue reading “China – U.S. Phase 1 Deal: Is It Enough?”
Clearly, there is more going on these days in Washington, D.C. than just the impeachment hearings, and activities this week made that point clear. In the span of only a few days, we saw progress on two key issues – the China 301 tariffs and the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
First, we saw an indefinite suspension of the List 4B 15% China tariff which was to take effect on December 15, 2019. The President tweeted about it, saying “The 25% Tariffs will remain as is with 7 1/2% put on much of the remainder…” (see here for the full text) and USTR issued a press release (see here). Regretfully, neither is very clear, beyond stating the tariff on goods on List 4B is suspended indefinitely. CBP confirmed the suspension later in the day at CSMS 40984510. There was also a Fact Sheet issued by USTR (see here), but it, too, failed to clear up the tariff impact. Continue reading “Yikes to the Year End!”
As has been widely reported, on Friday, first President Trump announced and then USTR Lighthizer confirmed the 301 tariffs on goods out of China will increase. Specifically, the tariffs on the goods on Lists 1, 2 and 3 will rise from 25% to 30% starting October 1, 2019, while the tariffs on the List 4 products will start at 15% on September 1, 2019 or December 15, 2019, rather than the original 10%, depending on whether your product is on List 4A or List 4B. USTR also acknowledged there will be a notice and comment period provided in the Federal Register notice to follow. While no doubt many American traders hope the possibility exists to remove products from any of the lists, that seems highly unlikely. While this upheaval continues, companies should also keep in mind the ability to seek exclusions for goods on List 3 expires on September 30, 2019. The exclusion process for goods on List 4 has still not been published. Continue reading “Tariff Turmoil Gets Hotter!”