Mexican companies are finding they have less time to reform their union relationships than they had thought, and U.S. firms that contract with companies in aerospace, aerospace, auto and auto parts, cosmetics, industrial baked goods, steel, aluminum, glass, pottery, plastic, forgings, cement and mining sectors should be doing due diligence to learn what the plan is to come into compliance. The head of the AFL-CIO recently said they are planning to file a complaint within the month (see 2009040052).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 31 - Sept. 6:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Aug. 31-Sept. 4 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
An importer of caulk guns is entitled to monetary damages from a competitor that claimed its caulk guns were made in the U.S. when substantial portions of them were imported, the New Jersey U.S. District Court said in a recent decision. The court found that Albion Engineering continued to claim “Made in U.S.A.” in its marketing materials, representations to customers and even on some product labeling after moving much of its production to Asia, to the detriment of Newborn Bros.'s ability to attract business.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 2 declined to order the release of an importer’s entries that were detained by CBP on country of origin concerns, finding the uncertainty around its own contradictory line of cases on substantial transformation was a factor in denying the bid for a preliminary injunction.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 24-30:
A gaming software company said it may have violated U.S. sanctions and export reporting requirements, according to its regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Unity Software, based in California, told the SEC it voluntarily disclosed possible export and sanctions violations to the Bureau of Industry and Security and the Office of Foreign Assets Control in August. The SEC filing, dated Aug. 24, is a registration statement ahead of the company's eventual initial public offering.
Door thresholds assembled from aluminum extrusions and non-aluminum components are not always subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 27 decision. Reversing positions taken by Commerce in a scope ruling issued in late 2018 (see 1901150033), the trade court found mentions of door thresholds in the scope as subject merchandise only refer to whole aluminum extrusions used as thresholds, and not assemblies containing extruded aluminum.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 17-23:
More substance and detail are needed in guidelines the Interagency Labor Committee intends to follow for enforcing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement's free-trade labor rules, commented retail, manufacturing and business groups as posted Monday in docket USTR-2020-0028. The treaty took effect July 1, giving Mexican workers collective bargaining rights for the first time, plus protecting them against retaliation for joining unions or refusing to join. The committee, co-chaired by Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, has the authority under USMCA’s “rapid response labor mechanism” to rescind a product's duty-free status or bar its import if it finds the goods were manufactured in a facility with serious labor violations. It’s charged with deciding if “sufficient, credible evidence” exists of a “denial of rights” at a facility that would trigger the “good-faith invocation of enforcement mechanisms,” said interim “procedural guidelines” in a June 30 notice. But there’s concern with the “lack of clarity” in the guidelines about what constitutes “sufficient, credible evidence” because it’s not a “well-understood evidentiary standard in the U.S.,” commented the National Retail Federation. “This ambiguity may invite the filing of frivolous, fraudulent, or malicious claims to injure the reputation of an employer or burden the employer for anti-competitive purposes.” NRF also urged the committee to require in the guidelines that petitions and associated reviews “not stray beyond what is mandated” in USMCA. The committee should explicitly say it won’t accept petitions that include claims other than denial of rights allegations for joining unions or participating in collective bargaining talks, it said. Adding such clarifications “will keep the guidelines consistent” with USMCA, ensuring the committee’s “review processes and resources are used as intended,” said NRF. Amend the guidelines to require that a targeted facility “be notified within 14 days” that a petition of wrongdoing has been filed, said the National Association of Manufacturers. “This would ensure that manufacturers are aware of potential enforcement actions against their business partners.” NAM, like NRF, also wants the committee to define the standard of “sufficient, credible evidence” of a violation, and to “delineate clearly how the committee will review petitions and make final determinations.” Additionally, create “a detailed process” enabling a factory accused of denying workers' rights to file an appeal within 30 days, especially “for cases in which the complainant party does not act in good faith,” NAM said. It defined lack of good faith as including petitions submitted frivolously. The committee’s “determinations” process “requires greater elaboration” lacking in the June 30 guidelines, said the U.S. Council for International Business. The guidelines are silent about how the committee “makes a finding, whether by a vote or some other method, and if there is a right to dissent,” it said. There's also nothing spelled out about the rights of a company facing allegations of wrongdoing in its factories, “including the ability for the company to present its own evidence as well as challenge allegations made by a petitioner,” it said. “Under no circumstance should a company be left out of the process for determinations.”