As promised back in April (see 1904150016), Canada has filed an appeal at the World Trade Organization covering certain elements of a ruling on U.S. treatment of Canadian softwood lumber imports. The decision, which Canada said questioned some aspects of the U.S. duties' calculation, did allow for zeroing, which had always been ruled out of bounds in previous WTO cases (see 1904100046). The appeal was filed June 4 in Geneva.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 27 - June 2:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 20-26:
The Commerce Department is proposing to amend its regulations to provide for the imposition of countervailing duties to address currency undervaluation. Under the proposed rule, Commerce would consider a foreign exporter’s currency exchanges a potential form of subsidy, and seek Treasury’s input in CV duty cases on the extent of undervaluation and whether that undervaluation is a result of government intervention. Comments are due June 27.
CBP provided instructions in a May 22 CSMS message on how to handle cases where an exclusion request is still pending with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, an issue recently addressed by a CBP official (see 1905090059). "If you have a pending product exclusion request with USTR, or are importing a product that is covered by such a pending exclusion request, and you are concerned that a corresponding entry may liquidate before USTR renders a decision on the exclusion request," there are two options. The filer can either "request an extension of the liquidation deadline, and file a [post-summary correction] no later than 15 days before the extended date of liquidation," or " file a protest within the 180 day period following liquidation," CBP said. "When filing a protest, the protestant should identify the pending product exclusion decision from USTR as a basis for the protest. Upon receiving USTR’s decision on the product exclusion, the protestant should submit the exclusion information to CBP." After a protest is filed, "CBP will postpone making a determination on protests that include a claim identifying a pending product exclusion. Once USTR completes the exclusion processing, CBP will process these protests pursuant to USTR’s exclusion determination. That is, CBP will refrain from denying or granting a party’s protest before the importer receives a final determination from USTR regarding its product exclusion request."
An agricultural exporter recently joined a Supreme Court challenge of the constitutionality of Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum imports. Basrai Farms says the brunt of retaliatory tariffs imposed worldwide in response to the U.S. tariffs has fallen on the agriculture industry, and that the Supreme Court should find Section 232 unconstitutional because President Donald Trump was required to consider these broader effects when imposing the tariffs.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 13-19:
CBP can’t collect antidumping or countervailing duties when the scope of the AD or CV duty is still unclear as to whether the entries are covered by duties, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a May 16 decision. Affirming a 2018 decision from the Court of International Trade, CAFC held CBP should have waited for Commerce’s scope ruling on Sunpreme’s hybrid cells before requiring cash deposits, and ordered a refund of cash deposits collected before Commerce began the underlying scope inquiry.
The only media item the FCC will tackle at its June 6 commissioners’ meeting concerns cable leased access rules, meaning action on relaxing kidvid rules isn’t likely until at least July, agency and industry officials told us this week. Broadcast industry officials and child advocates expect revamped kidvid regulations this summer. Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said last week he hopes “to be concluding” the kidvid proceeding “in the very near future.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 6-12: