CIT Rejects Bid to Quash Prehearing Subpoena in Suit on Section 301 Rate Hike on Needles, Syringes
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 9 denied importer Retractable Technologies' motion to quash a prehearing deposition subpoena from the U.S. in the company's suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Judge Claire Kelly said the government's request for expedited discovery in the suit is "reasonable and for good cause." The judge said Retractable didn't explain "the basis for its belief that preparation of its witnesses for a deposition would be 'burdensome and unreasonable.'"
The importer filed its suit last month seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary hearing against the rate hike (see 2409270025). Kelly set an evidentiary hearing for Oct. 16, telling the parties to submit a list of witnesses and the subject of their testimony, along with exhibits they may use (see 2410010037). Ahead of the hearing, the U.S. filed a subpoena seeking corporate testimony from Retractable.
The government asked for quantity and value information on goods Retractable intends to import in the coming year under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9018.31.00 or 9018.32.00. The U.S. also asked for the amount of federal government funds provided to Retractable over a five-year period, the company's current domestic production, its product lines made in the U.S., the availability of domestic manufacturing resources to make product lines currently imported from China and the impact of the Section 301 duties.
Kelly said it's "unclear to the Court how these lines of questioning impose an 'undue burden on Retractable,'" saying they're relevant to the evidentiary hearing and the government's preparation for the hearing. The judge said it's "reasonable, given the Court’s interest in having a full and fair hearing, to allow the Defendant to adequately prepare for the evidentiary hearing." She added that the deposition isn't "duplicative" but gives the U.S. the ability to prepare for the hearing by "clarifying matters 'outside' its knowledge."