Tech Firms Ask Court to Vacate Tariffs on Chinese Goods

The U.S. Court of International Trade should “set aside” the List 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports as “ultra vires” (“beyond the powers”) of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and order the duties refunded to U.S. importers, said tech companies Dana Innovations, Foster Electric, GN Audio, Scosche Industries and Sharp Electronics in five virtually identical complaints (in Pacer). They were among hundreds filed Thursday and Friday accusing USTR of overstepping Trade Act authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act. The suits attempt to seize on a potential tariff refund opportunity, if floor-tiling plaintiffs prevail in their case (see 2009110041). The complaints are “timely,” said the dozens of them we studied, under CIT’s residual jurisdiction provision, coming before Monday’s two-year anniversary of USTR’s List 3 Federal Register notice. Though the HMTX case “may be a long-shot, you can never say never,” blogged trade expert Ted Murphy with Sidley Austin. “If you want to preserve your right to a refund, in case the flooring companies’ action is successful, you need to put a case on file at the CIT.” Scosche suffered “an actual, imminent injury that is fairly traceable to the implementation, administration, and enforcement of List 3 and/or List 4,” said the car audio supplier. The harms “can be redressed by a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction” ruling USTR’s actions unlawful under the Trade Act and “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA, said Scosche. Akin Gump filed the original suit for HMTX using as a template the complaint it drafted for CTA two years ago. Other lawyers modeled their actions after that. USTR didn't comment.