The Food and Drug Administration on May 15 rolled out a reorganization of its field offices that includes the creation of five import-specific districts, an agency spokeswoman said. The five districts (here) include the Division of Northeast Imports (here), the Division of Northern Border Imports (here), the Division of West Coast Imports (here) and the Division of Southeast Imports (here), as well as the Division of Southwest Imports (here), which previously existed as the Southwest Import District and served as a model for the new import divisions (see 1704040024).
Brian Feito
Brian Feito is Managing Editor of International Trade Today, Export Compliance Daily and Trade Law Daily. A licensed customs broker who spent time at the Department of Commerce calculating antidumping and countervailing duties, Brian covers a wide range of subjects including customs and trade-facing product regulation, the courts, antidumping and countervailing duties and Mexico and the European Union. Brian is a graduate of the University of Florida and George Mason University. He joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2012.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 1-7:
Weeks out from the first compliance date for new requirements under the Foreign Supplier Verification Program on May 30, confusion persists among the trade community as to what must be done to comply and who is required to do it. Despite pleas from the NCBFAA for a “soft landing” (see 1705020041), the Food and Drug Administration has so far not explicitly indicated a policy of enforcement discretion, though agency officials have agreed to be “mindful” of the rule’s impact on industry (see 1704040024). Given the rule’s complexity and past experience, FDA will likely take a lenient approach, using the initial compliance period for education, though particularly egregious cases could see early enforcement.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 24-30:
An exporter's bid to secure the return of $25 million in aluminum products seized by CBP will continue, after the Central California U.S. District Court on April 21 denied a government motion to dismiss the case. Lawyers for the government had argued Perfectus’ case couldn’t seek the return of the aluminum products because the administrative forfeiture process was already underway. The court decided in Perfectus’ favor after finding the government lawyers’ claims were “blatantly untrue.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 17-23:
The Commerce Department will require cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on softwood lumber from Canada, it said in a fact sheet issued April 24 (here). Rates calculated in its preliminary determination range from 3.02% to 24.12%, depending on the Canadian producer or exporter. The imposition of duties marks the latest phase in a long-running dispute over Canadian softwood lumber that dates back to 1982. U.S. softwood lumber producers requested antidumping and countervailing duties on softwood lumber in late 2016 (see 1611280035), following expiration of the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement a year earlier (see 1510160010).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 10-16:
The Commerce Department on April 19 launched an investigation that could result in the imposition of tariffs, quotas or other import restraints on steel. Commerce will examine whether steel imports threaten national security and a finding in the affirmative would allow President Donald Trump to take action to “adjust imports.” Trump signed a memorandum (here) the following day, April 20, instructing Commerce to carry out the inquiry “expeditiously." The Section 232 investigation is legally required to be completed within 270 days, though Trump said at the memorandum’s signing ceremony that he expects the agency’s report in the “next 30 to 50 days, I would say, and maybe sooner.”
NEWPORT, Rhode Island -- Foreign governments are in active discussions on how they would respond to implementation of the proposed border adjustable tax plan by the U.S., said Kenneth Smith Ramos, head of the Mexican Ministry of Economy’s trade and NAFTA office, at the Coalition of New England Companies for Trade Northeast Trade and Transportation Conference on April 12. Mexico and Canada recently organized a meeting in Washington and “35 embassies showed up.” Another meeting is scheduled for next week “and I think we have to get a bigger room,” he said.