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

Final AD/CVD margins announced in coated steel trade case
The Commerce Department announced the final anti-dumping and countervailing duty (CVD) margins in the sprawling trade case investigating corrosion-resistant steel imports.

Canada agrees to drop most retaliatory tariffs
Canada has agreed to drop some retaliatory tariffs on US products, effective Sept. 1.

Price on trade: What a difference a year makes!
As everyone surely knows by now, the SMU Steel Summit starts on Monday in Atlanta, Ga. So, this is a great opportunity to reflect on how much has changed since the 2024 Summit. Certainly, no one could have imagined the wholesale and transformative changes to U.S. and global trade policy.

Canadian steelmakers call for protection after US adds derivatives to S232
The Canadian Steel Producers Association expressed dismay upon the news that the Trump administration had added over 400 products to the list of derivative products covered by the 50% Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum.

China opens WTO dispute with Canada over steel, aluminum
China has requested dispute consultations with Canada at the WTO about Canadian measures on Chinese steel and aluminum imports.