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

Healthcare Acquisitions and Divestitures During the COVID-19 Pandemic

July 9, 2020It seems as though all aspects of our personal and professional lives have been impacted in one way or another by the COVID-19 public health emergency. Healthcare acquisitions and divestitures are no exception. Although the ramifications depend on the specific circumstances of each transaction, we are noticing certain common threads woven among recently closed and currently in progress transactions in the healthcare industry. Here are a few of the questions that often arise as we work with clients to navigate the current business landscape both during and after the COVID epidemic.Client Alert

Ministerial Exception to Title VII

July 9, 2020On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that religious institutions, such as churches and religion-based schools, are shielded from employment discrimination lawsuits — including claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In doing so, the Court decided in favor of two Catholic schools facing legal discrimination claims from former teachers who alleged wrongful termination from their employment for age and disability.Client Alert

Ohio House Passes Bill 679 Establishing & Modifying Telehealth Service Requirements

July 6, 2020In response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Ohio Department of Health, Department of Medicaid, and Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services issued emergency rules expanding telehealth services and increasing access to healthcare while the public was under a stay-at-home order. On June 10, 2020, the Ohio House of Representatives favorably (91 votes for and 3 votes against) passed House Bill 679 (“HB 679”), establishing new and modifying existing requirements regarding the provision of telehealth services in Ohio. This bill essentially turns the various administrative emergency rules into law and will fundamentally change the way healthcare is delivered in the state.Client Alert

Ohio House Passes Bill 388 Including Out-of-Network Reimbursement Requirements

July 6, 2020On May 20, 2020, the Ohio House of Representatives unanimously passed House Bill 388, which would enact five new Ohio Revised Code sections regarding out-of-network care and reimbursement.Client Alert

Ohio Medicaid Starts Paying Pharmacists for COVID-19 Testing & Pilots Focus on Direct Care from Pharmacists

July 2, 2020Two significant announcements were made by Ohio’s Department of Medicaid recently. Both announcements provide greater access to healthcare services for Medicaid beneficiaries in Ohio and by utilizing the expertise of pharmacists and providing reimbursement for their services related to COVID-19 testing.
Older posts
Newer posts