In Husch Blackwell’s November 2019 Trade Law Newsletter, you’ll learn about the following updates in international trade and supply chain law.
…
On November 1, 2019, Commerce announced in the Federal Register the opportunity to request an annual administrative review for products that are currently subject to antidumping and countervailing duties. As part of this annual review process Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the…
On October 7, 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that it would add twenty eight (28) Chinese entities consisting of companies, government offices, and security bureaus to the Entity List for engaging in or enabling activities contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests. Similar to the actions taken against…
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced on July 1, 2019 a proposed list of tariffs on approximately $4 billion worth of products from the European Union (EU). This is a supplemental list to the April 12, 2019 proposed tariffs with an approximate trade value of $12 billion.
According to USTR, this action is designed to pressure the EU to implement the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body recommendations in regard to the United States’ WTO dispute against the EU’s subsidies on large civil aircraft.
Interested parties can appear at a public hearing or file comments on the proposed list.
On June 3, 2019, in the ongoing case of determining whether or not Plaintiff Midwest Fastener’s zinc and nylon anchor products are considered to be nails, the CIT sustained the Department of Commerce’s final results of the redetermination pursuant to the Court Remand. The CIT concluded that Plaintiff’s zinc and nylon anchors do not function like nails and are considered a separate type of product from nails by the relevant industry. Commerce’s remand results were sustained and Plaintiff Midwest Fastener’s products were excluded from the scope.
On June 6, the CIT denied Plaintiffs Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa, Consejo Agricola de Baja California, Asociacion Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida, Asociacion de Productores de Hortalizas del Yaqui y Mayo, and Sistem Producto Tomate (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction (“PI”) in the antidumping duty investigation of tomatoes from Mexico. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish the likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. They also had failed to establish if the hardships tip in favor of denying the Plaintiff’s motion. The Court also found the public interest to be neutral. For those reasons the CIT denied the plaintiff’s motions.
On May 1, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination results following a countervailing duty investigation for certain hot-rolled steel flat products from the Republic of Korea. The court reviewed two issues on remand, Commerce’s selection of the highest calculated AFA rate and Commerce’s corroboration. Concerning the first issued on the selection of the AFA rate, the CIT found that Plaintiff POSCO did not exhaust its administrative remedies. The second issue presented was whether or not the selected 1.05% AFA rate was corroborated based upon substantial evidence and whether Commerce’s selection of a non-de-minimis AFA rate was appropriate because it was a rate calculated for a cooperating Korean company in another countervailing duty proceeding for a similar program.
On May 2, 2019, in the case of garage door openers that were redesigned to avoid infringement on a registered patent, the CIT denied the ITC’s motion for a stay pending appeal based on the grounds that the ITC did not meet its burden for a stay. A stay of the preliminary injunction and all other proceedings in this matter was not warranted as: (1) the ITC has not demonstrated a “strong showing” of likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the ITC has not demonstrated that it will be irreparably injured absent a stay in this action, (3) the issuance of a stay would substantially injure another party, the Plaintiff, and (4) the public interest is neutral. For those reasons, the CIT denied the ITC’s motion for a stay.
On May 28, 2019, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed action and modification of regulations regarding the benefit and specificity in Countervailing Duty Proceedings to address the issue of currency undervaluation in CVD proceedings. The new regulation will authorize the use of countervailing duties on imports of goods from countries that “undervalue” their currency relative to the U.S. dollar. While this is still a proposed rule, interested parties may comment on this modification no later than June 27, 2019.
