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.
Summary of Decisions
On July 1, 2019, in the ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China, the Court concluded that jurisdiction over this action exists because Plaintiff Perfectus’s complaint seeking review of the scope ruling was filed within thirty days of the mailing by post of that ruling as required by statute and was therefore timely and the Court sustains Commerce’s finding that the pallet products fall within the plain language of the scope of the Orders.
On July 2, 2019, in the classification case of stringed light sets, the Court granted Plaintiff Target’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Defendant’s cross-motion. The CIT concluded that the subject merchandise based on the principal of use and commercial fungibility with other products was incorrectly classified by Customs. In the Opinion, the CIT stated, “there can be no genuine issue of material fact that the lighting sets at issue are not principally used as Christmas tree lights and are not fungible with Christmas tree lights.”
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.
Continue Reading
As previously reported in our International Trade Insights blog, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) added Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Huawei”) and sixty-eight of its affiliate companies to the BIS Entity List effective May 16, 2019. This designation prohibits anyone inside or outside of the United States from exporting, re-exporting or making an in-country transfer of commodities, software or technology that is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) to any of the listed Huawei companies without an appropriate license from BIS. Commodities, software and technology are “subject to the EAR” when they are of U.S. origin (regardless of whether they are located inside or outside the U.S.), physically present in the U.S., moving in transit through the U.S. or produced outside of the U.S. with qualifying amounts of controlled U.S.-origin content. The BIS designations for these Huawei companies require BIS to evaluate any license applications according to a general presumption of denial. BIS has also issued a Temporary General License (covered here in the International Trade Insights blog) which authorizes limited transactions with Huawei Entity List companies under certain contracts that existed on or before May 16, 2019. This Temporary General License is currently scheduled to expire on August 19, 2019.
Continue Reading
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.
Continue Reading