On September 26, 2024, Texas-based syringe importer Retractable Technologies, Inc. (“Retractable”) filed a complaint before the United States Court of International Trade contesting the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) 100 percent tariff rate on imported needles and syringes from China. The tariff increase became effective on September 27, 2024.  In conjunction with the complaint, Retractable Technologies, Inc., also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order requesting the court suspend application of the tariff increase while the litigation is pending.

This action comes after USTR recently announced higher duties for needles and syringes from the previously proposed 50 percent to 100 percent as part its statutory four-year review of tariffs imposed on imported Chinese goods under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Retractable’s complaint claims that USTR’s tariff increase on needles and syringes violated the Trade Act of 1974 and the Administrative Procedure Act. Further, the complaint claimed that the USTR failed to give Retractable fair notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of the tariff.

Retractable specifically argues that needles and syringes were not included on the list of products that were subject to the four-year review notice and comment period, and therefore Retractable did not submit comments. Instead, Retractable Technologies, Inc. alleges that these tariffs were improperly “back-doored” as Section 301 tariffs through an unrelated USTR notice on supply chain resilience.

This case presents similar questions to that which arose before the CIT in HMTX Industries LLC v. US, which challenges original imposition of Section 301 tariffs. While this action arises from the actions of a different Presidential administration, the Court of Appeals’ ultimate decision in HMTX Industries LLC v. US case will likely guide how the CIT will decide this matter.

We expect the court to prioritize Retractable’s temporary restraining order and a decision will likely be issued in the near future.

Crowell & Moring, LLP continues to monitor developments in the customs and trade remedies space and their potential impact on businesses and customers going forward. For more information on USTR’s final decisions on Section 301 tariffs, read our previous post here.

Tags: Section 301
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Weronika Bukowski Weronika Bukowski

Weronika Bukowski is a counsel in the International Trade Group of Crowell & Moring and resident in the firm’s New York office.

Weronika’s practice focuses on international trade litigation spanning a broad range of issues, including antidumping and countervailing duties, customs-related disputes, duty

…

Weronika Bukowski is a counsel in the International Trade Group of Crowell & Moring and resident in the firm’s New York office.

Weronika’s practice focuses on international trade litigation spanning a broad range of issues, including antidumping and countervailing duties, customs-related disputes, duty evasion, circumvention, and matters arising under sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.  She also advises clients on compliance with sanctions administered by OFAC, export controls in the EAR and the ITAR, the FCPA, U.S. import and customs rules, and other civil and criminal statutes and regulations.

Read more about Weronika Bukowski
Show more Show less
Photo of Emily Devereaux Emily Devereaux

Emily Devereaux is a senior international trade analyst I in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. She provides practice support to the International Trade Group on import regulatory matters pending before the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and

…

Emily Devereaux is a senior international trade analyst I in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. She provides practice support to the International Trade Group on import regulatory matters pending before the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). She works closely with attorneys developing courses of action for clients impacted by investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. She also supports unfair trade investigations, including antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations, sunset reviews, and changed circumstance reviews before the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission (ITC).

Read more about Emily Devereaux
Show more Show less
Photo of Ivy Xun Ivy Xun

Ivy Xun is an international trade analyst in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. She provides practice support to the International Trade Group on import regulatory matters pending before the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. She…

Ivy Xun is an international trade analyst in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. She provides practice support to the International Trade Group on import regulatory matters pending before the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. She works closely with attorneys developing courses of action for clients impacted by investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Ivy also supports unfair trade investigations, including antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, sunset reviews, and changed circumstance reviews before the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission.

Read more about Ivy Xun
Show more Show less
Related Posts
PRC Firm Files to Contest WRO Against Silica Products in Court of International Trade
March 4, 2024
USTR releases remand results on US-China Section 301 Tariffs
August 5, 2022
CIT issues Preliminary Injunction Temporarily Restraining Liquidation of Section 301 Import Entries
July 9, 2021