Trade Cases
CIT Receives Thousands of Lawsuits Over Section 301 Tariffs
Written by Sandy Williams
September 27, 2020
The Trump administration has received more than 3,300 lawsuits from manufacturers alleging that the most recent rounds of tariffs against China under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 were unlawful and arbitrary.
The first two rounds of tariffs covered $50 billion worth of Chinese goods. The third was implemented on $200 billion of imports and the fourth on $120 billion. The products in question include everything from household goods and clothing to machinery and auto parts. Plaintiffs allege that the United States Trade Representative exceeded its authority in imposing the third and fourth rounds and are seeking refunds for tariffs already paid.
A number of major automakers have filed lawsuits with the Court of International Trade including Tesla, Volvo, Ford and Mercedes Benz. Tesla called the tariffs “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.”
Mercedes Benz accused the administration of prosecuting “an unprecedented, unbounded, and unlimited trade war. Mercedes added that U.S. law “did not confer authority on defendants to litigate a vast trade war for however long, and by whatever means, they choose.”
The National Law Review states, “Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the USTR to impose duties to combat certain ‘unreasonable’ or ‘discriminatory’ trade acts by a foreign government.” Tariffs are paid by the U.S. importers of those goods.
The National Review added, “The plaintiffs argue that the Section 301 law was not intended as a tool to engage in an ‘open-ended trade war,’as opposed to an initial response to China’s intellectual property violations.”
Although the lawsuits are consider a long shot at best, the sheer number of complaints are expected to garner serious attention from the CIT. Besides the automakers, major companies include HMTX Industries, Coca-Cola, Home Depot and Target.
“I would hope the court realizes that law firms and companies don’t sue the government on a whim. That while the payout could be significant, they would not do this without having looked at it carefully and done the due diligence to make sure the case is legitimate,” a lawyer told Inside U.S. Trade. “You don’t pull the trigger on suing the government lightly. I think the number of cases and the well-regarded law firms — that should have some impact on any judge’s views of the validity of the claims. I don’t think they can ignore that.”
Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases
US rebar producers seek import relief with new trade case
The four countries targeted for duties are currently the top offshore suppliers of rebar to the US market: Algeria, Bulgaria, Egypt, and Vietnam.
CRU Insight: A 50% S232 tariff will raise US steel prices and shift trade flows
This CRU Insight examines how the increase in Section 232 tariffs on steel to challenging levels will lead to significatively higher prices for end consumers in the US market.
Canacero hits out at new US steel tariffs
Mexican steel trade group Canacero has condemned the US’ actions of raising tariffs on steel and aluminum to 50% from 25%.
It’s official: Trump proclamation doubles S232 on imported steel, aluminum to 50%
President Donald Trump on Tuesday evening signed a proclamation that officially doubled Section 232 tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from 25% to 50%. There was one exception: Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum from the United Kingdom will remain at 25%, according to a fact sheet published by the White House.
Cliffs CEO cheers higher S232. What’s next for Canada, Mexico, and automotive?
Cleveland-Cliffs Chairman, President and CEO Lourenco Goncalves offered full-throated support for Section 232 tariffs on imported steel being doubled to 50%. And the top executive of the Cleveland-based steelmaker said the steel industry wanted to see as few exceptions as possible to the tariffs.