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

Key Healthcare Provisions in Ohio’s 2026–2027 Budget

July 2, 2025Ohio’s newly enacted biennial budget (HB 96) for FY 2026–2027 brings sweeping changes for healthcare providers across the state. The law includes new Medicaid eligibility requirements, reporting mandates, funding directives, and social policy provisions. Several vetoes by Governor DeWine also affect healthcare-related initiatives.Client Alert

Providers Beware: Court Sides with Insurers in No Surprises Act Arbitration

July 2, 2025On June 12, 2025, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Aetna and Kaiser in two lawsuits brought by air ambulance providers challenging how insurers calculated payments under the No Surprises Act’s Independent Dispute Resolution process. The court held that unless there is clear evidence of fraud or serious misconduct, IDR decisions will stand, reinforcing the finality of the arbitration process.Client Alert

Introducing HB 281: Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws in Ohio Hospitals

July 1, 2025House Bill 281, introduced on May 20, 2025, would require Ohio hospitals to allow law enforcement, including federal immigration agents, to enter facilities and enforce immigration laws. The bill mandates that hospitals comply with information requests and adopt formal policies, raising significant concerns about patient privacy and access to care for immigrant communities.Client Alert

Parental Consent May Soon Be Required for Minor Mental Health Services in Ohio

June 25, 2025HB 172 proposes repealing a provision in Ohio law that allows minors age 14 and older to consent to limited outpatient mental health services without parental involvement. The bill would require parental consent for all such care and remove related language from other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.Client Alert

Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

June 16, 2025Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.
Older posts