On March 17, the Court of International Trade (CIT) concluded that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) legally complied with Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements regarding Section 301 tariffs on China.
CIT OPINION ON SECTION 301 TARIFF ACTION
- CIT initially stated that USTR lacked responses to thousands of tariff comments and that the responses provided did not meet APA requirements.
- USTR responded with a 90-page remand decision that eventually led to the March 17 final ruling – USTR acted within its authority to impose the tariffs and the comments on remand were not illegal.
- According to CIT, the responses were within context as well as derived from specific Presidential direction. USTR is not required to provide further information past the conclusive claims.
PLAINTIFF OPINION ON SECTION 301 TARIFF ACTION
- The plaintiffs had opposing opinions on USTR’s responses, claiming they were illegal post hoc rationalizations because responses can only be provided during the process of the tariffs being imposed, not after-the-fact.
- There were also claims the responses were inadequate due to leaning too far towards Presidential direction.
- Finally, there were major areas the responses were lacking to address such as impacts on the United States economy and effectiveness of the tariffs.
Despite the plaintiff opinion, these claims were not sufficient for the court to overturn its actions. Therefore, USTR’s decision on Section 301 tariffs on China remain.
Stay up-to-date on freight news with Green’s Weekly Freight Market Update by following us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. For continuous updates, make sure to check out our website at greenworldwide.com.
