On September 1, 2020 the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”), Department of Agriculture, and Department of Commerce issued a 32-page report outlining the Trump Administration’s plan to address increased foreign imports of perishable fruits and vegetables. One of the actions included in the inter-agency plan was for USTR to request that the
On September 30, 2020, the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on utility scale wind towers from India, Malaysia, and Spain. Additionally, the petition alleges that imports of utility scale wind towers from India and Malaysia are unfairly subsidized and requests the imposition of countervailing duties.
SCOPE
On September 29, 2020, the Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group (“Petitioners”), filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on certain aluminum foil from Armenia, Brazil, Oman, Russia, and Turkey. Additionally, the petition alleges that imports of certain aluminum foil from Oman and Turkey are unfairly subsidized and requests the imposition of countervailing
A federal judge from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted TikTok’s motion for preliminary injunction, resulting in a nationwide temporary suspension of an order from the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) for Apple and Google to remove TikTok from its U.S. app stores. Last week, Chinese social media app WeChat was
President Trump issued an Executive Order on September 21, 2020 which, effective immediately, imposes secondary sanctions on the transfer and sale of certain conventional arms shipments and the supply of related services to Iran by non-U.S. persons. This Executive Order follows the current administration’s failed effort to reinstate sanctions and a conventional arms embargo by
China-based smartphone apps, TikTok and WeChat, have each received a reprieve from the respective bans, which were originally ordered by President Trump on August 6, 2020 against both parties and were scheduled to take effect on September 21, 2020. Please see our previous post covering the Executive Orders. Pursuant to the Executive Orders banning the
On September 14, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced its preliminary countervailing duty determination finding that imports of prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Turkey were unfairly subsidized by the Turkish government. Commerce preliminarily found that exporters from Turkey were subject to duties as high as 135.06%. Commerce preliminarily determined that Turkish producer Celik
The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) will not stay its order (Ct. No. 19-00009) instructing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund importers’ Section 232 tariffs on steel from Turkey. A three-judge panel denied the government’s motion to stay while also denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce judgement. The CIT found that the
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced the rescission of Section 232 tariffs on Canadian aluminum, retroactive to September 1, 2020. The 10% tariff on non-alloyed, unwrought aluminum under subheading 7601.10 from Canada was announced on August 6, 2020 and went into effect on August 16, 2020. Following the USTR’s announcement of
The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement body ruled that the tariffs imposed by the U.S. on imports from China are inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and recommended that the U.S. “bring its measures into conformity” with its obligations under the GATT. Beginning in 2018, at the direction of President Trump, the U.S. imposed tariffs on $400 billion worth of imports from China over 4 different lists or tranches. The U.S. and China negotiated a “phase one” trade deal earlier this year, however, most of the tariffs were still left in place.
The WTO panel concluded that the U.S. failed to demonstrate that the tariff measures are justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. As a result, the panel found the U.S. tariff measures to be inconsistent with Articles I:1, II:1(a) and II:1(b) of GATT 1994. In other words, the WTO found that the U.S. tariffs on China were discriminatory and excessive, and the U.S. failed to present justification for an exemption that could have legally allowed for the tariffs.