Trade Law

International trade litigation requires patience. These disputes often span several years and involve multiple redeterminations by the agency whose action is subject to judicial review. The appeal can get even further complicated when the original proceeding becomes entangled with one or more subsequent administrative proceedings. And even if a party prevails on appeal, a victory may become hollow unless the appropriate agencies implement the redetermination in a timely fashion.

At the end of 2018, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an opinion in One World Techs., Inc. v. United States. In that decision, Judge Choe-Groves concluded that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) improperly excluded from importation one entry of a redesigned garage door opener imported by One World Technologies, Inc. She determined that One World’s redesigned garage door opener did not infringe U.S. Patent 7,161,319, which formed the basis of an exclusion order issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337), because CBP had misconstrued certain claim terms in that patent. In so doing, Judge Choe-Groves construed the claims of the ’319 patent, an exercise rarely undertaken in prior disputes before the CIT. As a result of her conclusion, Judge Choe-Groves issued an injunction preventing CBP from excluding the entry at issue. Our earlier coverage of that decision provides additional details.

In late March, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a highly anticipated opinion addressing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 authorizes the President to take measures against imports found to threaten to impair the national security of the United States. Section 232 sets no limit on what measures the President may take against the imports, so long as the chosen remedy addresses imports.

On March 22, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will begin to implement its own formaldehyde emission standards as required under the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, Title VI to the Toxic Substances Control Act.ⁱ For nearly a decade since the passage of Title VI, EPA has relied on California to set the standards, with EPA deeming any goods certified as compliant by the California Air Resources Board as federally compliant.

Yesterday morning, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) formally notified Congress that the administration intends to initiate renegotiations with Mexico and Canada on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The administration is required to submit the notice to ensure that any legislation required to implement an updated agreement can receive fast-track protection under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA). Under the TPA, the USTR may not enter into formal negotiations until 90 days after this notice is provided to Congress. Thus, NAFTA renegotiations can start on August 16, 2017.

President Trump signed two EOs addressing trade on Friday, March 31: one addressing trade and customs enforcement, including the collection of antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD), and a second requesting an omnibus report on significant trade deficits. While the EOs represent another of the administration’s major forays into trade, they set the table for increased enforcement of U.S. trade laws and scrutiny of U.S. trading partners.

Introduction

On January 27, 2017, President Trump announced restrictions on entry to the United States by several categories of non-citizens. The EO titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” cites authority vested in the President under the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the national security objective “to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” The EO contains 11 sections. This analysis focuses on two of those sections: Section 3, which addresses the suspension of visas and other immigration benefits for countries of particular concern, and Section 5, which addresses the suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).

Swiss goods and services are valued by consumers who are ready to pay a premium for goods that are Swiss made. The current rules regulating the Swiss brand are often ignored by the market and enforcement is difficult and rare. The new Swissness legislation will strengthen the conditions under which goods and services may be labeled with “Made in Switzerland” and bear the Swiss cross. This legislation will come into force on 1 January 2017.