In Husch Blackwell’s March 2020 Trade Law Newsletter, you’ll learn about the following updates in international trade and supply chain law:
In Husch Blackwell’s February 2020 Trade Law Newsletter, you’ll learn about the following updates in international trade and supply chain law:
In Husch Blackwell’s January 2020 Trade Law Newsletter, you’ll learn about the following updates in international trade and supply chain law.
In Husch Blackwell’s December 2019 Trade Law Newsletter, you’ll learn about the following updates in international trade and supply chain law.
In Husch Blackwell’s November 2019 Trade Law Newsletter, you’ll learn about the following updates in international trade and supply chain law.
In Husch Blackwell’s October 2019 Trade Law Newsletter, you’ll learn about the following updates in international trade and supply chain law.
In Husch Blackwell’s September 2019 Trade Newsletter you’ll find international trade and supply chain updates including presidential actions, U.S. Department of Commerce Decisions, U.S. International Trade Commission Proceedings, U.S. Customs & Border Protection Decisions, Court of International Trade Decisions, Federal Court of Appeals Decisions, and Export Controls and Sanctions.
If you have questions about September’s
In May of 2019, the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) added Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Huawei”) and sixty-eight of its affiliated companies to BIS’s Entity List. These designations prohibit anyone, anywhere
Summary of Decisions
On August 1, 2019, the CIT remanded Commerce’s remand redetermination in the administrative review of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico. The court found that Commerce’s remand results did not comply with the court’s order and the decision by Commerce to apply a 40.52% AFA-rate to Plaintiff Deacero is unsupported by substantial evidence.
On August 1, 2019, the court sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination in the first administrative review of steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico. The CIT found that Commerce’s decision not to collapse six non-producing fixed asset owning companies on remand complied with the court’s order and was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, Commerce’s reliance on the cost experiences of the collapsed fixed asset owners to value the non-collapsed companies and decision not to apply total or partial facts available with an adverse inference to the respondent were sustained.
Section 701/731 Proceedings
Investigations