On February 20, 2024, Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co., Ltd. (“Jiaxing Hoshine”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Hoshine Silicon Industry Co., Ltd., filed a complaint at the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) challenging the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) June 2021 decision to issue a withhold release order (WRO) against Hoshine
On July 27, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a significant decision in a case involving the alleged evasion of antidumping duties assessed on pencils of Chinese origin by Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. (Royal Brush) under the Enforce and Protect Act of 2015 (EAPA). The EAPA is a statutory scheme
On May 12, 2023, the plaintiff group in the China Section 301 tariff refund litigation, in response to the recently issued decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) upholding those Section 301 tariffs, formally filed its Notice of Appeal. The appeal will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
On April 24, 2023, plaintiffs in an ongoing challenge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc of their argument that former President Donald Trump improperly imposed additional Section 232 national security tariffs on derivatives of certain imported steel articles. In their petition for consideration by
On March 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition by USP Holdings, Inc. and related parties challenging the Trump administration’s Section 232 tariffs on steel imports. The steel importer petitioners had asked the Court to reverse aspects of a June 2022 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (and
On March 17, 2023, in the China Section 301 tariff relief litigation, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) upheld in a major opinion the legality of the implementation of List 3 and List 4A tariffs by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on imports of Chinese products into the United States. In
On February 7, 2023, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) heard oral arguments on the USTR’s remand explanation and the plaintiff group’s reply comments. The hearing addressed the CIT’s earlier finding that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) failed to respond adequately to comments it received during the rulemaking process when
On December 5, 2022, the plaintiff group filed its final reply to the government defendants’ response on the remand determination of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in the ongoing Court of International Trade (CIT) litigation challenging the validity of Section 301 tariffs on certain imports of Chinese products. This final reply continued
On Friday, November 4, 2022, the government defendants in the ongoing Court of International Trade (CIT) litigation challenging the validity of the China Section 301 tariffs filed their response to the comments of the plaintiff group and amici curiae on the remand explanation of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). In filing their
On September 14, 2022, the plaintiff group in the ongoing China Section 301 tariff refund litigation before the Court of International Trade (CIT) filed its comments in response to the USTR’s remand explanation. The comments highlight that the CIT offered the USTR a final opportunity to explain its rationale and reasoning as to why it