The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is proposing a new de minimis exemption from Lacey Act declaration requirements for importers. Under the proposed rule, importers would not have to submit declarations for products with minimal amounts of plant material. The agency is considering setting thresholds based on either weight or volume at either the product or entry line level. APHIS is also proposing to codify certain declaration requirements in its regulations, including a deadline of three days after importation for the submission of declarations, and seeks comments on a separate exemption for composite wood products. Comments on both exemptions are due Sept. 7.
CBP will begin to apply a 25 percent Section 301 duty on goods found on a list of 818 8-digit tariff subheadings with country of origin China that are entered on or after 12:01 a.m. Eastern time July 6, said Alex Amdur, CBP director-antidumping and countervailing duty policy and programs, on a call held July 5 to answer questions from the trade community. Based on country of origin, not country of export, the tariffs will be applied based on the date of entry, and goods with an entry date prior to July 6 will not be subject, including in cases in which the filers “elect” such an entry date.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 25 - July 1:
Russia recently began a World Trade Organization challenge of U.S. Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum products, the WTO said in a press release. Russia claims the tariffs violate the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the WTO safeguard agreement. The country had already announced plans to retaliate. Under WTO rules, Russia may request a panel to decide the case if consultations don’t resolve the dispute in 60 days.
The American Institute for International Steel and two companies filed a lawsuit June 27 at the U.S. Court of International Trade over the constitutionality of Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. The suit claims that Section 232 is unconstitutional because it delegates such broad authority to the president and there is no judicial review to those broad powers. "The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the law relied on by President Trump to impose that tariff is unconstitutional, as well as a court order preventing further enforcement of the 25% tariff increase," AIIS said in a news release. The trade group also asked that a three-judge panel hear its case, because that would allow an appeal to go straight to the Supreme Court.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 18-24:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for June 18-22 in case they were missed.
Emergency Action Notifications issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service can’t be challenged at the Court of International Trade, CIT said in a decision issued June 20. Dismissing an importer’s challenge to an EAN citing contaminated wood packaging material and ordering destruction or exportation of the entire shipment, CIT found U.S. district courts have jurisdiction over actions by the Agriculture Department and transferred the case to the Southern Texas U.S. District Court.
Emergency Action Notifications issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service can’t be challenged at the Court of International Trade, CIT said in a decision issued June 20. Dismissing an importer’s challenge to an EAN citing contaminated wood packaging material and ordering destruction or exportation of the entire shipment, CIT found U.S. district courts have jurisdiction over actions by the Agriculture Department and transferred the case to the Southern Texas U.S. District Court.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 11-17: