Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`RD FOODS AMERICAS, INC.
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
`
`
`:
`OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE
`
`:
`REPRESENTATIVE; ROBERT E. LIGHTHIZER,
`:
`U.S.TRADE REPRESENTATIVE;
`
`
`:
`U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION;
`
`:
`MARK A. MORGAN, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER
`:
`PROTECTION ACTING COMMISSIONER,
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
` _________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COURT NO. 20-03292
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff RD Foods Americas, Inc. (“RDFA”), by and through its attorneys The Obert Law Firm,
`
`P.L.L.C., allege and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This action challenges Defendants’ unlawful imposition of a third round of
`
`additional tariffs on certain imported products originating in The People’s Republic of China
`
`(“China”) pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. §2411) (“Section 301”) and
`
`covered by Defendant Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (“USTR”) Notice of
`
`Modification of Section 301 Action: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology
`
`Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 83 Fed. Reg. 47,974 (Sept. 21, 2018) (“List 3”).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff RDFA alleges that Defendants’ implementation of the List 3 tariff action
`
`and unlawful imposition and collection of additional tariffs on products covered by List 3
`
`violates Section 301, as Defendant USTR failed to issue its List 3 within the statutorily defined
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`12-month time period required by Section 304 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. §2414) (“Section
`
`304”).
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff RDFA alleges that Defendants’ implementation of the List 3 (and
`
`subsequent List 4) tariff action and unlawful imposition and collection of additional tariffs on
`
`products covered by List 3 violates Section 307 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. §2417) (“Section
`
`307”), as Section 307 does not provide Defendant USTR with authority to expand the imposition
`
`and assessment of tariffs to additional imports from China as a response to China’s retaliatory
`
`duties and other unrelated issues that are unconnected to those initially investigated by
`
`Defendant USTR under Section 301.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff RDFA further alleges that Defendants’ implementation of the List 3 tariff
`
`actions and unlawful imposition and collection of additional tariffs on products covered by List 3
`
`violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), in so much as that Defendant USTR did not:
`
`(1) provide sufficient opportunity for comment; (2) consider relevant factors when making its
`
`decision; and (3) establish a nexus between the record facts and its decisions.
`
`5.
`
`The Court should therefore set aside Defendants’ actions as otherwise contrary to
`
`law and order Defendants to refund (with interest) any tariffs paid by Plaintiff RDFA pursuant to
`
`List 3.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`6.
`
`The Court retains “exclusive” subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. §1581(i)(1)(B), which provides for “any civil action commenced against the United
`
`States, its agencies, or its officers, that arises out of any law of the United States providing
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`for...tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than
`
`the raising of revenue.” 28 U.S.C. §1581(i)(1)(B).
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff RDFA is a privately owned importer and wholesale distributor of canned
`
`foods. Plaintiff RDFA has made numerous entries of such products classified under headings
`
`1604.14.30, 1604.19.10, 1604.19.25, 2005.20, 2005.99.41, 2008.30.42, 2008.4000, and
`
`2008.70.2000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), which are
`
`subject to the additional ad valorem tariffs under List 3.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”) received Plaintiff
`
`RDFA’s payments of the disputed tariffs and is the statutory defendant under 5 U.S.C. §702 and
`
`28 U.S.C. §1581(i)(1)(B).
`
`9.
`
`Defendant USTR, an executive agency of the United States, is responsible for the
`
`investigation of foreign country trade practices under Section 301 and the implementation of
`
`necessary and appropriate responses thereto, subject to the direction of the President of the
`
`United States. Defendant USTR conducted the Section 301 investigation at issue in this action
`
`and made numerous decisions regarding List 3.
`
`10.
`
`Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer (“Lighthizer”) is both the current United States
`
`Trade Representative and director of Defendant USTR. In fulfilling both roles, Ambassador
`
`Lighthizer made numerous decisions regarding List 3.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is the agency of the
`
`United States tasked with the collection of duties and tariffs on imports. Defendant CBP
`
`Page 3 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`collected the payments made by Plaintiff RDFAs with respect to the List 3 tariffs imposed by
`
`Defendant USTR, which are at issue herein.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant Mark A. Morgan (“Morgan”) is the Acting Commissioner of
`
`Defendant CBP. As Acting Commissioner of Defendant CBP, Defendant Morgan is responsible
`
`for the administration of Defendant CBP’s collection of tariffs paid by Plaintiff RDFA under List
`
`3.
`
`STANDING
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff RDFA has standing to commence this action because it was required to
`
`pay at time of importation of its goods into the United States the unlawful Section 301 tariffs
`
`imposed pursuant to List 3. As such, Plaintiff RDFA is “adversely affected or aggrieved by
`
`agency action within the meaning of” the APA, which states in pertinent part “[a]ny civil action
`
`of which the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction . . . may be commenced in the court by
`
`any person adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of Section 702
`
`of title 5.” 5 U.S.C. §702; see 28 U.S.C. §2631(i) .
`
`TIMELINESS OF THE ACTION
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1581(i)(1)(B), a plaintiff must commence an action
`
`“within two years after the cause of action first accrues.” 28 U.S.C. §2636(i).
`
`15.
`
`The subject action contests actions taken by Defendants that resulted in List 3.
`
`Plaintiff RDFA’s claims relating to List 3 accrued, at the earliest on September 21, 2018, when
`
`USTR published its notice of List 3 in the Federal Register notice entitled Notice of Modification
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`of Section 301 Action: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer,
`
`Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 83 Fed. Reg. 47,974 (Sept. 21, 2018).
`
`16.
`
`The instant action was filed within two years of the date Defendant USTR’s
`
`September 21, 2018 Federal Register notice covering List 3.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`17.
`
`Section 301 explicitly authorizes Defendant USTR to investigate a foreign
`
`country’s trade practices. 19 U.S.C. §2411(b).
`
`18.
`
`If Defendant USTR’s investigation uncovers an “unreasonable or discriminatory”
`
`practice, Defendant USTR may take “appropriate” action, including the imposition of tariffs on
`
`imports from the country administering the unfair practice. Id. §2411(b), (c)(1)(B).
`
`19.
`
`Section 304 explicitly requires that Defendant USTR determine within 12 months
`
`after the initiation of the underlying investigation what, if any, action to take. Id. §2414(a)(1)(B),
`
`(2)(B).
`
`20.
`
`Pursuant to Section 307, Defendant USTR may only “modify or terminate” an
`
`action taken pursuant to Section 301 when the “burden or restriction on United States
`
`commerce” imposed by the investigated foreign country’s practice has “increased or decreased”
`
`or when the action “is no longer appropriate.” Id. §2417(a)(1)(B), (C).
`
`RELEVANT FACTS
`
`21.
`
`On August 14, 2017, the President of the United States directed Defendant
`
`Lighthizer to consider initiating a targeted investigation pursuant to Section 301(b) concerning
`
`China’s laws, policies, practices, and actions related to intellectual property, innovation, and
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 6 of 17
`
`technology. Addressing China’s Laws, Policies, Practices, and Actions Related to Intellectual
`
`Property, Innovation, and Technology, 82 Fed. Reg. 39,007 (August 17, 2017).
`
`22.
`
`On August 18, 2017, Defendant USTR initiated its investigation into Chinese
`
`technology transfer and intellectual property practices. Initiation of Section 301 Investigation;
`
`Hearing; and Request for Public Comments: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to
`
`Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 82 Fed. Reg. 40,213 (August 24,
`
`2017).
`
`23.
`
`On March 28, 2018, Defendant USTR published its report of its investigation in
`
`OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, Findings of the Investigation
`
`Into China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property,
`
`and Innovation Under Section 301 of The Trade Act of 1974 (March 22, 2018), wherein it
`
`concluded that certain investigated “acts, policies, and practices of the Chinese government
`
`related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are unreasonable and
`
`discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce.” Id. at 17.
`
`24.
`
`On June 20, 2018, Defendant USTR published its Notice of Action and Request
`
`for Public Comment Concerning Proposed Determination of Action Pursuant to Section 301:
`
`China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and
`
`Innovation, 83 Fed. Reg. 28,710 (June 20, 2018), otherwise known as “List 1”, in which
`
`Defendant USTR imposed an additional 25 percent ad valorem tariff on certain identified
`
`products of China.
`
`25.
`
`In response to Defendant USTR’s imposition of the additional 25 percent ad
`
`valorem List 1 and List 2 tariffs, China imposed similar 25 percent ad valorem tariffs on $50
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`billion of U.S.-origin goods to coincide with the start of the United States’ collection of the List
`
`1 ($34 billion on July 6, 2018) and proposed List 2 ($16 billion on August 23, 2018) tariffs.
`
`26.
`
`On July 10, 2018, Defendant Lighthizer confirmed that China’s retaliatory tariffs
`
`motivated Defendant USTR’s proposed action, stating that such actions were proposed “[a]s a
`
`result of China’s retaliation and failure to change its practice.” Statement of U.S. Trade
`
`Representative Robert Lighthizer on Section 301 Action (July 10, 2018), available at
`
`https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/july/statement-us-trade-
`
`representative.
`
`27.
`
`Public statements made by the President of the United States that same day
`
`further confirm that the proposed additional tariffs were related to the trade imbalance between
`
`the United States and China. See e.g., realDonaldTrump, TWITTER (July 10, 2018, 9:17
`
`PMEDT), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1005982266496094209.;
`
`@realDonaldTrump, Twitter (July 25, 2018, 7:01 AM EDT),
`
`https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1022074252999225344.
`
`28.
`
`On July 17, 2018, in a clear response to China’s retaliatory imposition of 25
`
`percent ad valorem tariffs on U.S.-origin goods, and without any reference to China’s technology
`
`transfer, intellectual property, or innovation policies, Defendant USTR proposed the imposition
`
`of tariffs on further categories of Chinese-origin products. Request for Comments Concerning
`
`Proposed Modification of Action Pursuant to Section 301: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices
`
`Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 83 Fed. Reg. 33,608,
`
`33,609 (July 17, 2018), initially set a deadline of August 17, 2018 for initial comments; August
`
`20-23, 2018 for a public hearing; and August 30, 2018 for rebuttal comments. Id. at 33,608.
`
`Page 7 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`29.
`
`In its July 17, 2018 notice, Defendant USTR cited as its authority Section
`
`307(a)(1)(C), which provides that Defendant USTR “may modify or terminate any action,
`
`subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President with respect to such action, . . . if . . .
`
`such action is being taken under [Section 301(b)] of this title and is no longer appropriate.” Id. at
`
`33,609 (citing 19 U.S.C. §2417(a)(1)(c)).
`
`30.
`
`In its July 17, 2018 notice, Defendant USTR explicitly confirmed China’s
`
`decision to impose “retaliatory duties” (i.e., tariffs) as the principal basis for Defendant USTR’s
`
`proposed action, stating among other things: “China’s response to the $50 billion action
`
`announced in the investigation and its refusal to change its acts, policies, and practices”.
`
`31.
`
`In its July 17, 2018 notice, Defendant USTR explicitly tied the $200 billion in its
`
`proposed action to the level of retaliatory duties imposed by China on U.S. imports, noting that
`
`“action at this level is appropriate in light of the level of China’s announced retaliatory action
`
`($50 billion) and the level of Chinese goods imported into the United States ($505 billion in
`
`2017).” Id. at 33,609.
`
`32.
`
`Although its July 17, 2018 notice referenced China’s retaliatory measures,
`
`Defendant USTR did not explicitly identify any increased burdens or restrictions on U.S.
`
`commerce resulting from the unfair practices that USTR had investigated, as required by Section
`
`307 (19 U.S.C.§2417(a)(1)(B), (C)).
`
`33.
`
`On July 18, 2018, Defendant Lighthizer issued a press release discussing the
`
`proposed Section 301 action, stating in pertinent part “China has since retaliated against the
`
`United States by imposing tariffs on $34 billion in U.S. exports to China, and threatening tariffs
`
`on another $16 billion. It did this without any international legal basis or justification…. As a
`
`result of China’s retaliation and failure to change its practices, the President has ordered USTR
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`to begin the process of imposing tariffs of 10 percent on an additional $200 billion of Chinese
`
`imports….”
`
`34.
`
`On August 1, 2018, alleging China’s unlawful retaliation against the United
`
`States, Defendant USTR announced that it would impose an additional 25 percent ad valorem
`
`tariff on certain additional Chinese-origin products. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE
`
`REPRESENTATIVE, Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer on Section 301
`
`Action (Aug. 1, 2018).
`
`35.
`
`On August 16, 2018, Defendant USTR published its Notice of Action Pursuant to
`
`Section 301: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual
`
`Property, and Innovation, 83 Fed. Reg. 40,823, 40,823-24 (Aug. 16, 2018), otherwise known as
`
`“List 2”, in which it imposed an additional 25 percent ad valorem duty on certain identified
`
`products of China.
`
`36.
`
`On September 17, 2018, the President of the United States issued a statement
`
`announcing that, as a result of China’s decision to “impose new tariffs in an effort to hurt the
`
`United States economy,” he had directed USTR to impose 10 percent ad valorem tariffs on $200
`
`billion of additional imports from China. THE WHITE HOUSE, Statement from the President
`
`(Sep. 17, 2018).
`
`37.
`
`On September 21, 2018, more than 12 months after its August 24, 2017 initiation
`
`of the investigation, Defendant USTR published its final “List 3” of affected products subject to
`
`the additional tariffs, which would be applied to all listed products that enter the United States
`
`from China on or after September 24, 2018. Notice of Modification of Section 301 Action:
`
`China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and
`
`Innovation, 83 Fed, Reg, 47,974 (Sep. 21, 2018).
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 10 of 17
`
`38.
`
`In its September 21, 2018 notice, Defendant USTR justified its action under
`
`“Section 307(a)(1)(B)” (19 U.S.C. §2417(a)(1)(B)) as a modification of the existing Section 301
`
`action, because the burden on United States commerce had allegedly continued to increase.
`
`Citing “Section 307(a)(1)(C),” 19 U.S.C. §2417(a)(1)(C) Defendant USTR further specified in
`
`its September 21, 2018 notice that Chinese retaliation made the existing action no longer
`
`“appropriate.”
`
`39.
`
`On September 24, 2018, Defendants USTR and Defendant CBP began imposing
`
`and collecting such List 3 tariffs on all listed products entered into the United States from China
`
`at the rate of 10 percent ad valorem.
`
`40.
`
`On May 9, 2019, Defendant USTR announced its intent to raise the tariff rate on
`
`List 3 goods from 10 percent ad valorem to 25 percent ad valorem, effective either May 10, 2019
`
`or June 1, 2019, depending on the day of export. See Notice of Modification of Section 301
`
`Action: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual
`
`Property, and Innovation, 84 Fed. Reg. 20,459 (May 9, 2019); see also Implementing
`
`Modification to Section 301 Action: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology
`
`Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 84 Fed. Reg. 21,892 (May 15, 2019).
`
`41.
`
`In its May 9, 2019 notice, Defendant USTR cited China’s decision to “retreat
`
`from specific commitments agreed to in earlier rounds” of negotiations as the basis for the
`
`increase in the duty rate. 84 Fed. Reg. at 20,459.
`
`42.
`
`Unlike past practice concerning the imposition of new tariffs, Defendant USTR
`
`did not seek public comment. It simply announced that the increase would occur. Id.
`
`43.
`
`On May 17, 2019, USTR announced its intention to proceed with its
`
`implementation of Section 301 tariffs on additional products to be included in what would be
`
`Page 10 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`referred to as “List 4.” Request for Comments Concerning Proposed Modification of Action
`
`Pursuant to Section 301: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer,
`
`Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 84 Fed. Reg. 22,564, 22,564 (May 17, 2019).
`
`44.
`
`According to the Defendant USTR’s own statements in its May 17, 2019 notice,
`
`its rational for “List 4” was to punish China for its failure to meet specific commitments made in
`
`prior negotiations and its further retaliation against the U.S. rather than China’s policies with
`
`respect to technology transfer, intellectual property, or innovation.
`
`45.
`
`On August 20, 2019, more than 12 months after the initiation of the investigation
`
`(August 24, 2017), Defendant USTR announced that it would implement List 4 in two phases.
`
`Notice of Modification of Section 301 Action: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to
`
`Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 84 Fed. Reg. 43,304 (Aug. 20,
`
`2019).
`
`46.
`
`In its August 20, 2019 notice, Defendant USTR again relied upon the authority
`
`provided in Section 307(a)(1)(B) and (C) as its principal basis for modifying its prior action.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant USTR’s August 20, 2019 notice refers to China’s defensive actions
`
`including retaliatory tariffs as its basis for modifying its prior action.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant USTR’s August 20, 2019 notice does not identify intellectual property,
`
`technology transfer or innovation as the reasons for List 4.
`
`49.
`
`As part of the first phase of List 4, Defendants USTR and Defendant CBP began
`
`imposing and collecting additional 10 percent ad valorem tariffs with respect to products that are
`
`entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after September
`
`1, 2019.
`
`Page 11 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 12 of 17
`
`50.
`
`To date, the second phase of List 4 has been suspended and has not yet been
`
`applied to imported goods form China. The second phase, however, may be imposed if directed
`
`by the President.
`
`51.
`
`On June 24, 2019, Defendant USTR invited the public to seek exclusion from List
`
`3 tariffs on a product-specific basis. Procedures for Requests to Exclude Particular Products
`
`From the September 2018 Action Pursuant to Section 301: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices
`
`Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 84 Fed. Reg. 29,576
`
`(June 24, 2019).
`
`52.
`
`No such exclusions have ever been granted by Defendant USTR with respect to
`
`List 3 products covered by subheadings 1604.14.30, 1604.19.10, 1604.19.25, 2005.20,
`
`2005.99.41, 2008.30.42, 2008.4000, and 2008.70.2000, HTSUS.
`
`53.
`
`The tariffs imposed on products covered by List 3 remain in effect as of the date
`
`of this Complaint, with the exception of the limited number of products for which USTR
`
`extended its originally granted exclusions from the List 3 tariffs. See, e.g., Notice of Product
`
`Exclusion Extensions: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer,
`
`Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 85 Fed. Reg. 48,600 (Aug. 11, 2020).
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff RDFA has been required to pay these unlawful tariffs imposed and
`
`collected by Defendants USTR and CBP pursuant to List 3.
`
`STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
`
`COUNT ONE
`
`(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT—VIOLATION OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974)
`
`55.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated by reference.
`
`Page 12 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`56.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201(a), The Declaratory Judgment Act, any court of the
`
`United States is authorized to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party
`
`seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.”
`
`57.
`
`The Trade Act of 1974 does not authorize the actions taken by Defendants that
`
`resulted in the List 3 tariffs.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant USTR may only impose tariffs pursuant to Section 301 when it
`
`determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory
`
`and burdens or restricts United States commerce, and action by the United States is appropriate.”
`
`19 U.S.C. §2411(b).
`
`59.
`
`Defendant USTR failed to predicate its action giving rise to List 3 on any such
`
`determination.
`
`60.
`
`Section 304 requires that, if Defendant USTR concludes upon investigation that a
`
`foreign country maintains an unfair trade practice, Defendant USTR must “determine what
`
`action, if any,” to take within “12 months after the date on which the investigation is initiated.”
`
`19 U.S.C. §2414(a)(1)(B), (2)(B).
`
`61.
`
`Defendant USTR’s action giving rise to List 3 occurred on September 21, 2018,
`
`more than 12 months after Defendant USTR initiated its underlying Section 301 investigation on
`
`August 18, 2017.
`
`62.
`
`Section 307 authorizes USTR to “modify or terminate” an action taken pursuant
`
`to Section 301(b) of the Trade Act when the burden imposed on U.S. commerce from the foreign
`
`country’s investigated unfair acts, policies, or practices increases or decreases. 19 U.S.C.
`
`§2417(a)(1)(B). Section 307, however, does not permit Defendants to increase tariffs for reasons
`
`unrelated to the acts, policies, or practices that USTR investigated pursuant to Section 301.
`
`Page 13 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 14 of 17
`
`Congress did not authorize Defendant USTR to escalate its focused investigatory findings into an
`
`open-ended trade war.
`
`63.
`
`Section 307 also authorizes Defendant USTR to “modify or terminate” an action
`
`taken pursuant to Section 301(b) of the Trade Act if the initial action taken by Defendant USTR
`
`“is no longer appropriate.” 19 U.S.C. §2417(a)(1)(C). Section 307 does not authorize Defendants
`
`to increase tariff actions that are no longer “appropriate,” but rather only to delay, taper, or
`
`terminate such actions.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff RDFA is therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment as Defendants’
`
`actions giving rise to List 3 (and List 4) are ultra vires and contrary to law.
`
`COUNT TWO
`
`(VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT)
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 64 are incorporated by reference.
`
`The APA authorizes the Court to invalidate and set aside agency action that is:
`
`“(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B)
`
`contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory
`
`jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (D) without observance of
`
`procedure required by law; [or] (E) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. §706(2).
`
`67.
`
`The imposition of List 3 tariffs by Defendant USTR, for reasons other than those
`
`relating to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation, exceeded their authority
`
`under the Trade Act in promulgating List 3 and, therefore, Defendant USTR acted “not in
`
`accordance with the law” and “in excess of statutory authority” for the reasons set forth in Count
`
`One.
`
`Page 14 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 15 of 17
`
`68.
`
`The imposition of List 3 tariffs by Defendant USTR more than 12 months after
`
`the initiation of the investigation is outside the scope of statutory authority and fails to satisfy the
`
`procedures required by law.
`
`69.
`
`In support of its imposition of List 3 tariffs, Defendants USTR and Lighthizer
`
`failed to offer any evidence for any asserted “increased burden” from China’s intellectual
`
`property policies and practices that were the subject of USTR’s Section 301 investigation.
`
`70.
`
`Defendants USTR and Lighthizer also promulgated List 3 in an arbitrary and
`
`capricious manner because they: (1) did not provide a sufficient opportunity for comment; (2)
`
`failed to meaningfully consider relevant factors when making their decisions; and (3) failed to
`
`adequately explain their rationale.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants USTR’s and Lighthizer’s predetermined decision-making resulted in
`
`the unlawful imposition and collection by Defendant CBP of tariffs on imports covered by List 3
`
`(and List 4).
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff RDFA respectfully requests that this Court:
`
`1. declare that Defendants’ actions resulting in tariffs on products covered by List 3
`
`are unauthorized by, and contrary to, the Trade Act;
`
`2. declare that Defendants arbitrarily and unlawfully promulgated List 3 in violation of the
`
`APA;
`
`3. vacate the List 3 rulemaking;
`
`4. order Defendants to refund, with interest, any tariffs paid by Plaintiff RDFA pursuant to
`
`List 3;
`
`Page 15 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 16 of 17
`
`5. permanently enjoin Defendants from applying List 3 against Plaintiff RDFA and
`
`collecting any tariffs from Plaintiff pursuant to List 3;
`
`6. award Plaintiff RDFA their costs and reasonable attorney fees; and
`
`7. grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 21, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Don M. Obert
`
`Don M. Obert
`The Obert Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
`1206 Castle Hill Avenue
`Bronx, New York 10462
`Counsel to RD Foods Americas, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03292-N/A Document 4 Filed 09/21/20 Page 17 of 17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to USCIT R. 4(b), (h) and (l), I hereby certify that on or before September 22, 2020, I
`
`will cause copes of Plaintiffs’ Summons and Complaint to be served on the following parties by
`
`certified mail, return receipt requested. Such filing is timely pursuant to USCIT R. 4(l) as such
`
`service is made within 90 days of the filing of the summons and complaint.
`
`
`
`Attorney-In-Charge
`International Trade Field Office
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`U.S. Department of Justice
`26 Federal Plaza
`New York, N.Y. 10278
`
`General Counsel Joseph L. Barloon
`Office of the General Counsel
`Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
`600 17th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20508
`
`
`Attorney-In-Charge
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`U.S. Department of Justice
`1100 L Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20530
`
`Chief Counsel Scott K. Falk
`Office of Chief Counsel
`U.S. Customs and Border Protection
`1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20229
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Don M. Obert
`
`Page 17 of 17
`
`