Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Chinese Product Tariff Challenge Causes Flurry of Importer Lawsuits

Client Alert
March 26, 2021

A lawsuit filed late in 2020 at the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) challenging the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) implementation of Section 301 “List 3” and “List 4” duties on products from China, HMTX Industries LLC et al. v. United States (Court No. 20-00177), has resulted in the filing of thousands of additional lawsuits brought by other affected importers. There are now 3,700+ companies added to the list, including Ford, Home Depot, Target, Tesla, and Walgreens, along with many other smaller importers.

BACKGROUND

In 2017, USTR was directed by the President to initiate a targeted investigation pursuant to Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 regarding China’s laws, policies, practices, and actions related to intellectual property, innovation, and technology. Upon the release of the report, USTR imposed a 25% tariff on a list of 1,333 items with a total trade value of $50B. This was followed by subsequent lists of additional products from China with tariffs ranging from 10% to 25%.The items on List 3 have an annual trade value of $200B and those on List 4 have a trade value of $300B. Items on these lists include furniture, lighting, vehicle parts, machinery, food, clothing and many more.

EXISTING LAWSUIT

On September 10, 2020, HMTX Industries LLC and two of its subsidiaries filed a complaint at CIT alleging an unlawful escalation of the ongoing trade war with China through the imposition of a third round of tariffs on imports covered under List 3 of the Section 301 tariffs. An amended complaint was filed on September 21, 2020 to include List 4A.

Plaintiffs have generally taken the position that, while initial retaliatory tariff action reflected in the implementation of Section 301 Tariffs on products found on List 1 and List 2 may have been lawful, the USTR’s subsequent round of actions (i.e., List 3 and List 4A) failed to comply with requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act.  These lawsuits, if successful, may ultimately eliminate List 3 (and where applicable, List 4A) tariffs and result in refunds.  It remains to be seen whether refunds would be applicable to all importers, or only those who filed complaints. 

The complainants seek to set aside these alleged unlawful actions and obtain a refund of any duties paid on imports of List 3 and List 4 products from China. All complaints are asking for a refund, with interest, of duties paid, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.

JOIN THE COMPLAINT

The strategy behind this type of lawsuit is to file suit and then move to consolidate with the HMTX Industries case or stay the lawsuit pending CIT’s disposition of the HMTX case. This strategy will allow the bandwagon importers to benefit if the HMTX Industries lawsuit is successful without incurring the large expenses of fully litigating their claims.

Because USTR published List 4A in the Federal Register on August 20, 2019, the two-year statute of limitations for filing a List 4A lawsuit based on publication date does not expire until August 20, 2021. This means importers that did not import products from China under List 3 (or chose not to file a List 3 lawsuit now) have an opportunity to file a lawsuit to join this challenge on imported Chinese products subject to duties under List 4A.

HOW BMD CAN HELP

Many of our clients may be directly or indirectly affected by these tariffs. Because of existing protest limitations, joining this lawsuit might be a reasonable option to attempt to recover those costs. If any clients are aware of imported items subject to these tariffs or wish to have their import documents reviewed, please contact International Law Attorney Kevin Burwell directly at kdburwell@bmdllc.com or 330-253-3715.

International LawKevin BurwellTariff
Client Alert

Advanced Practice Providers and Telemedicine Start-Up Surge

March 8, 2022Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we heard a lot about “surges” that happened all over the country regarding the virus. One of the other interesting “surges” we have followed is the “surge” in new healthcare business start-ups, particularly businesses owned by advanced practice providers, such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists (“Advanced Practice Providers” or “APPs”). One of the hottest areas in the healthcare start-up surge has been the creation of practices that are telemedicine focused.Client Alert

Ohio Department of Health Releases Updated Charge Limits for Medical Records

March 7, 2022Under Ohio law, a healthcare provider or medical records company that receives a request for a copy of a patient's medical record may charge an amount in accordance with the limits set forth in Ohio Revised Code Section 3701.741. The allowable amounts are increased or decreased annually by the average percentage of increase or decrease in the consumer price index for all urban consumers, prepared by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the immediately preceding calendar year over the calendar year immediately preceding that year, as reported by the Bureau. The Director of the Ohio Department of Health makes this determination and adjusts the amounts accordingly. The list is then published, here.Client Alert

No Surprises Act Compliance (Published by NAMAS, 2/25/22)

March 7, 2022The Department of Health and Human Services published three parts to the No Surprises Act towards the end of 2021, which took effect January 1, 2022. The Act is intended to protect consumers from “balance billing,” which occurs when a patient receives a bill with a higher price than they may have anticipated because they did not have knowledge that the provider or facility was out-of-network. The purpose of this article is to note certain requirements that compliance employees will need to be aware of at their facilities, including notice and consent, good faith estimates, and public disclosures.Client Alert

No Surprises Act and You (Published in the SCMS Winter 2022 Newsletter)

March 3, 2022Legislation has been adopted by the United States Congress and the Ohio Legislature known as the “No Surprises Act” which attempts to regulate billing by professionals and facilities to patients who are not in networks with those facilities or providers at those facilities. The federal bill was triggered by some sensational news stories of patients being billed for tens of thousands of dollars for emergency care when the hospital was out of the network under the patient’s insurance plans.Client Alert

Are You Impacted by the Project Labor Agreement Executive Order?

February 28, 2022Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are a quasi-collective bargaining agreement between employers and unions. They establish the terms and conditions of employment, including dispute resolution. They are put into place on specific projects and apply to the contractor, whether it is union or non-union. Employees hired on the project will be treated as union.
Older posts
Newer posts