United Kingdom

Subscribe to United Kingdom via RSS

On July 14, 2020, the United Kingdom announced that it will ban Huawei Technologies, Co. Ltd. (“Huawei”) equipment from its 5G network. Effective December 31, 2020, Telecoms operators in the UK can no longer purchase Huawei equipment and have until 2027 to remove Huawei technology from their networks, with broadband companies receiving an additional two…

Court of International Trade

Summary of Decisions

19-66

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.

19-69

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.

Investigations

  • Laminated Woven Sacks from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: On April 11, 2019, Commerce released its final AD and CVD determinations.

Administrative Reviews

  • Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil: On April 12, 2019, Commerce released the final results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (2017).
  • Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People’s Republic of China: On April 18, 2019, Commerce released the final results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (2017-2018).
  • Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: On April 19, 2019, the final results of the Antidumping Duty Review (2016-2017) were released.
  • Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: On April 22, 2019, Commerce released its final results for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (2016-2017).
  • Certain Steel Nails from the People’s Republic of China: On April 24, 2019, the final results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative review and Final determination of No Shipments (2016-2017) were released.
  • Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the People’s Republic of China: On April 25, 2019, the final results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative review and final determination of No Shipments (2016-2017) were released.
  • Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People’s Republic of China: On April 25, 2019, the final results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (2016) were released.
  • Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People’s Republic of China: On April 26, 2019, the final results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and final determination of No Shipments (2016-2017) were released.
  • Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: On April 29, 2019, Commerce released the final results and final determination of No Shipments of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (2016-2017).
  • Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia: On April 30, 2019, Commerce released the final results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (2016-2017).

On March 28, 2017, Petitioners Charter Steel, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Nucor Corporation filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties and countervailing duties on imports of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Belarus, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the Republic of South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

The merchandise covered by these investigations are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.1 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorous, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

For companies engaged in the international trade of goods or services, the decision of the United Kingdom to exit from the European Union, creates uncertainty on many levels. Laying aside political effects, such as potential reconsideration of Scotland’s 2014 decision to remain in the U.K. (Scotland having overwhelmingly voted to stay in the U.K. during the Brexit referendum), the legal issues stemming from the Brexit decision are almost too numerous to mention.  But, for a U.S. company thinking through the implications of Brexit, resultant changes in treaty obligations, British law, and U.S. law are the major categories to monitor carefully.

Aaron Mann, a TMT commercial litigation partner, recently gave a presentation in London regarding the differences between litigating commercial disputes in the U.S. versus the UK.  The presentation was done in conjunction with Pinsent Masons, a global law firm with which Husch Blackwell has worked closely for a number of years.  Aaron joined Pinsent Masons partners Richard Twomey (commercial litigation) and Barry Vitou (corporate criminal defense) in the presentation for Pinsent Masons’ clients.

Discovery versus disclosure, the American Rule versus the English Rule, compensatory versus punitive damages, the two systems of litigation are similar at times and worlds apart at others.  This seminar gave the largely-British audience a glimpse of how commercial disputes are prosecuted in the U.S. and what that might mean for a foreign defendant who finds itself in a U.S. courtroom.