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

RNs and APRNs Take Note: Ohio Board of Nursing Mandates a New CE Reporting Period

April 29, 2026Ohio’s Board of Nursing has updated the continuing education reporting period for RNs and APRNs. Beginning March 26, 2026, CE credits must be completed between July 1 and June 30 of odd-numbered years, replacing the previous November to October timeframe.Client Alert

Ohio Med Spas: Peptide Do's and Do Not's

April 29, 2026Recent guidance from the Ohio Board of Pharmacy outlines key compliance requirements for med spas using peptides. While some peptide drugs are FDA approved, others are not or cannot be compounded. Med spa operators should ensure they source medications from licensed suppliers, avoid non-approved or “research use only” products, and follow all compounding and storage regulations to maintain compliance and avoid enforcement actions.Client Alert

Substance Use Disorder Providers: 42 CFR Part 2 Now Enforceable

April 15, 2026Updates to 42 CFR Part 2 are now enforceable, bringing significant changes to how substance use disorder (SUD) records are handled. The Final Rule aligns Part 2 more closely with HIPAA, introduces updated penalties, allows a single patient consent for treatment, payment, and operations, and adds new requirements for Notices of Privacy Practices. It also creates a formal definition of SUD counseling notes and imposes strict consent requirements for their use and disclosure. Providers should review and update policies to ensure compliance.Client Alert

AAA Introduces AI-Assisted Arbitrator for Certain Disputes

April 7, 2026The American Arbitration Association has introduced an AI-assisted arbitration platform designed to streamline certain document-based disputes. While a human arbitrator still makes the final decision, the technology can improve efficiency, reduce costs, and accelerate case resolution. Companies should weigh these benefits against considerations such as transparency, risk, and contractual requirements before adopting AI-assisted arbitration.Client Alert

Quiet Hours Texts and TCPA Claims: Consent Remains King as Courts Divide on Text Messages

March 31, 2026Businesses face increasing TCPA lawsuits over off-hours marketing texts, but recent court decisions highlight strong defenses. Clear consumer consent and updated terms and conditions can defeat many claims, while a growing number of courts are finding that text messages are not “telephone calls” under the statute. Proactive compliance measures, including clickwrap agreements and forum-selection clauses, are critical to reducing risk.
Older posts