U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer and certain officials in the administration have expressed optimism about the future of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada
On October 23, 2019, Senator Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, stated that he had a “growing worry” about the current progress of USMCA and claimed that the Democrats are stalling in the…
On July 8, 2019, Petitioners Advanced Extrusion Inc. (“Advanced Extrusion”), Ex-Tech Plastics, Inc. (“Ex-Tech”), and Multi-Plastics Extrusions, Inc. (“Multi-Plastics”) filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on imports of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Sheet from Korea, Mexico and Oman.
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 8, 2019, USTR released its federal register notice on the tariff increase for the third tranche (List 3) Section 301 tariffs on China. The duty rate on the estimated $200 billion worth of Chinese products will increase from 10% to 25% effective 12:01am ET on Friday, May 10, 2019. The notice also announces that an exclusion process will be instituted for these products in a separate notice.
The rate increase to 25% means that entries of goods
