The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 25 - Jan. 1:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Dec. 27-30 in case they were missed.
The State Department through a final rule is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to allow CBP to implement the International Trade Data System (ITDS)/ACE for arms imports and exports, utilizing the State Department Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) partner government agency message set, State said (here). The rule will become effective on Dec. 31. Starting that day, traders declaring permanent or temporary exports and temporary imports "will input data relevant to DDTC in CBP’s electronic system(s)," DDTC said. "CBP will transmit the relevant shipment details to DDTC via an electronic data exchange, eliminating the need for traders to notify DDTC separately."
The Fish and Wildlife Service will take a “case-by-case” approach to shipments of rosewoods and other wood species arriving after Jan. 2 without newly required Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species documentation, said Craig Hoover, chief of the FWS Division of Management Authority, during a webinar hosted in early December by the International Wood Products Association (here).
CBP 's interim regulations set too high a standard for domestic producers to show evidence that "reasonably suggests" antidumping or countervailing duty evasion, the Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports said in comments to the agency (here). That's clear from CBP's decision not to act on the allegation submitted by Wheatland Tube (see 1610190029), the committee said. While Wheatland provided public import data, "CBP nevertheless required actual proof of evasion, which contradicts the minimal statutory evidentiary requirement for allegations," it said. That group and several others recently submitted comments (here) as part of CBP's request for comments on its interim regulations implementing the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) provisions (see 1608190014).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 19-25:
Ohio Sens. Rob Portman, R, and Sherrod Brown, D, sent a letter (here) to EU Parliament President Martin Schulz, expressing concerns about possible changes to how the EU treats China in antidumping duty cases. Under a recent proposal issued by the European Commission, "it appears unlikely China would actually be treated as a non-market economy in EU antidumping investigations," the letter said. "In light of China’s request this week to begin consultations with the U.S. and EU at the World Trade Organization, it is imperative that we coordinate our policies on non-market economy designations, particularly for China. We ask you to ensure the Parliament’s position on this proposal is established only after Congress and the Parliament have had the opportunity to collaborate," it said. China filed a WTO complaint on Dec. 12, arguing the U.S. and EU can no longer use special calculations for AD duty on its products. In an emailed statement, the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws voiced its support for Portman's and Brown's requests for European Parliament to consult with U.S. Congress and to work collaboratively to devise the most effective response to China’s non-market-based trade practices.
Despite some industry objections to CBP's proposal to end the use of "blanket certification" under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations (see 1608260032), the agency declined to stray from those plans in the final rule, it said in a notice (here). Blanket certifications are used to indicate either TSCA applicability or not -- called a "negative certification" -- for a wide range of products subject to Environmental Protection Agency reporting requirements. Commenters on the proposed changes said the end to blanket certification seems to go against the ongoing efforts to streamline trade processing (see 1609300031). The final rule is effective Jan. 26.
A World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel found in favor of all 18 of the U.S.’s claims that Indonesia is restricting and prohibiting imports of horticultural products, animals and animal products inconsistently with WTO rules, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced (here). The U.S. requested consultations with Indonesia in January 2013 over “unjustified and trade-restrictive” import licensing regimes for those products (see 13011114), which USTR says have been in place since 2012. Alongside New Zealand, the U.S. filed additional complaints in August 2013 (see 13083024) and May 2014 (see 14050930). Specifically, the dispute panel found (here) that Indonesia’s import-restricting measures for horticultural products were inconsistent with General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Article XI. Measures challenged by the U.S. include Indonesia’s requirement for importers to import at least 80 percent of the quantity for each product allotted on each license or face steep penalties, its restriction on horticultural imports during harvest periods to avoid competition with domestic products, and constraints on importing certain products when market prices fall below government-determined “reference prices,” USTR said. Indonesia has 60 days to appeal the panel’s decision.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 12-18: