U.S. trade remedies have been the “disproportionate focus” of World Trade Organization dispute panels, which are undermining the ability of the U.S. and other nations to effectively enforce their trade remedy laws, a report by the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) states (here). The report, unveiled by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio (here), was released on March 1, the same day that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative submitted its annual report to Congress that extensively challenged the competency of the WTO dispute resolution process (see 1703010028). “The WTO has found at least one violation of WTO rules in over 90 percent of the trade remedy disputes it has ruled on to date – a remarkable record of violations given that the WTO rules were negotiated by the members themselves,” the AAM report says. “Since 1995, the WTO has issued 38 separate decisions against U.S. trade remedy measures, nearly five times the number of such decisions issued against any other member.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 20-26:
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 28 dismissed parts of an importer’s lawsuit challenging CBP’s tariff classification of its graduated compression hosiery, arm sleeves and gauntlets (here). While the classification of other models remains to be decided, CIT ruled importer Sigvaris cannot contest the classification of certain lines of compression hosiery and arm sleeves because they were not listed in supplements to the importer’s protests or were not listed in documents during the case’s discovery phase.
The World Trade Organization recently posted the following notices:
Stakeholders are continuing to scrutinize a Domain Name Association (DNA) proposal for a voluntary third-party mechanism akin to ICANN’s trademark-centric uniform dispute resolution policy (UDRP) that would address copyright infringement through the use of domain names. Its proponents tell us many details for the mechanism remain in flux. DNA proposed what it calls a “Copyright Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy” (Copyright ADRP) this month in its rollout of recommendations via the Healthy Domains Initiative (see 1702080085). The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Internet Commerce Association criticized HDI for including the Copyright ADRP proposal among its recommendations (see 1702100054).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 13-19:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Feb. 13-17 in case they were missed.
Stakeholders are continuing to scrutinize a Domain Name Association (DNA) proposal for a voluntary third-party mechanism akin to ICANN’s trademark-centric uniform dispute resolution policy (UDRP) that would address copyright infringement through the use of domain names. Its proponents tell us many details for the mechanism remain in flux. DNA proposed what it calls a “Copyright Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy” (Copyright ADRP) this month in its rollout of recommendations via the Healthy Domains Initiative (see 1702080085). The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Internet Commerce Association criticized HDI for including the Copyright ADRP proposal among its recommendations (see 1702100054).
Cable and telco groups continued to battle over FCC treatment of pole attachments under a proposed ILEC shift from traditional Part 32 regulatory accounting rules to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The American Cable Association said if the commission ends use of Part 32 data to calculate pole-attachment rates, it should adopt an NCTA proposal to freeze price-cap carrier rates at current levels (see 1702090042). If the FCC adopts an ILEC 12-year transition proposal "in lieu of a rate freeze, at least it should provide that: incumbent carriers cannot increase rates for the first five years of the transition; incumbent carriers must maintain and produce part 32 data during this five year period so it can be compared to rates that would result from the use of [GAAP]; and, incumbent carriers should file with the Commission annually underlying data to show how they derive rates," said an ACA filing posted Thursday in docket 14-130. Telcos acknowledged the shift may cause pole-attachments rates, typically under $10 (per pole attachment per year), to rise "by several dollars, a substantial rate hike," which would be "especially felt" by ACA's members and hinder broadband deployment, the cable association said. The agency is considering streamlining its Part 32 rules at commissioners' Feb. 23 meeting (see 1702020051). A USTelecom filing posted Wednesday called the NCTA arguments "flawed" and Part 32 accounting "a relic of rate of return regulation" that "makes no sense for America's price cap carriers." It said ILECs understood the concerns of cable and others, and proposed "a reasonable transition mechanism" for calculating GAAP pole-attachment rates. The transition proposed by AT&T, CenturyLink and Verizon factored in depreciation, cost-of-removal and any other differences between methodologies, USTelecom said. Freezing rates based on one year's costs "cannot be a realistic alternative to a reasonable, long-term transition," the ILEC trade group said. The telco proposal "is not an effort to increase pole attachment rates; any suggestion otherwise is conflating an argument about problems with the formula used to define rates with a procedural accounting issue," it said. USTelecom said the carriers' confidential submissions back their claims that the transition's rate impact would vary -- rates would "in many cases, go down or not be significantly affected."
Cable and telco groups continued to battle over FCC treatment of pole attachments under a proposed ILEC shift from traditional Part 32 regulatory accounting rules to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The American Cable Association said if the commission ends use of Part 32 data to calculate pole-attachment rates, it should adopt an NCTA proposal to freeze price-cap carrier rates at current levels (see 1702090042). If the FCC adopts an ILEC 12-year transition proposal "in lieu of a rate freeze, at least it should provide that: incumbent carriers cannot increase rates for the first five years of the transition; incumbent carriers must maintain and produce part 32 data during this five year period so it can be compared to rates that would result from the use of [GAAP]; and, incumbent carriers should file with the Commission annually underlying data to show how they derive rates," said an ACA filing posted Thursday in docket 14-130. Telcos acknowledged the shift may cause pole-attachments rates, typically under $10 (per pole attachment per year), to rise "by several dollars, a substantial rate hike," which would be "especially felt" by ACA's members and hinder broadband deployment, the cable association said. The agency is considering streamlining its Part 32 rules at commissioners' Feb. 23 meeting (see 1702020051). A USTelecom filing posted Wednesday called the NCTA arguments "flawed" and Part 32 accounting "a relic of rate of return regulation" that "makes no sense for America's price cap carriers." It said ILECs understood the concerns of cable and others, and proposed "a reasonable transition mechanism" for calculating GAAP pole-attachment rates. The transition proposed by AT&T, CenturyLink and Verizon factored in depreciation, cost-of-removal and any other differences between methodologies, USTelecom said. Freezing rates based on one year's costs "cannot be a realistic alternative to a reasonable, long-term transition," the ILEC trade group said. The telco proposal "is not an effort to increase pole attachment rates; any suggestion otherwise is conflating an argument about problems with the formula used to define rates with a procedural accounting issue," it said. USTelecom said the carriers' confidential submissions back their claims that the transition's rate impact would vary -- rates would "in many cases, go down or not be significantly affected."