Tariffs Were Unconstitutional Forms of 'Revenue Collection,' Argues Importer

The roughly 800 complaints filed Tuesday into late Wednesday afternoon seeking to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and get the duties refunded paled in comparison with the 3,300-plus that inundated the U.S. Court of International Trade the previous five days (see 2009220027). The Tuesday complaints used Sept. 24, 2018, the date List 3 took effect, to argue “timeliness,” that they were within the two-year statutory window to file their claims. Virtually all the suits we examined alleged the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its authority under the 1974 Trade Act when it imposed Lists 3 and 4A as retaliatory strikes against China. They also alleged USTR violated the Administrative Procedure Act by running rulemakings that were sloppy and lacked transparency. Automotive supplier Brose North America and five subsidiaries introduced a novel argument Tuesday that Lists 3 and 4A were unlawful and unconstitutional forms of federal “revenue collection.” Trump administration statements show “an additional, if not the sole, reason and purpose” for Lists 3 and 4A “was to collect revenue for the federal general treasury,” said the complaint (in Pacer). “To the extent the List 3 and 4A additional duties were revenue collection measures, they were beyond the scope of actions USTR was authorized to take by the Trade Act.” Only Congress has the “constitutional power” to impose taxes, it said. USTR didn’t comment.