Solar importers intend to oppose President Donald Trump’s Oct. 10 proclamation ending an exemption from safeguard duties for bifacial panels (see 2010130028), they told the Court of International Trade in a status report filed Oct. 15. The proclamation runs contrary to the safeguard laws, and is barred by a CIT injunction currently in effect against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s earlier attempts to end the exemption, they said. The brief was filed hours after a related court decision left the injunction in place.
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.
President Donald Trump issued a proclamation Oct. 10 that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative says will end a hotly contested exemption for bifacial panels from safeguard duties on solar cells, despite a Court of International Trade injunction against its elimination that for now remains in effect (see 1912050063). The proclamation also increases the tariff applicable under the safeguard to account for bifacial panels already imported under the safeguard.
CBP should allow in-bonds to be transferred down the supply chain and “eliminate the unnecessary closure of active bonds and filing of subsequent in-bonds,” the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) said in a recommendation adopted at its Oct. 7 meeting. “A single in-bond should be able to be transferred among bonded parties, with liability for the in-bond shipment moving along with the physical transfers,” the COAC said.
More than 150 exclusions from lists 1 and 2 Section 301 China tariffs are set to expire Oct. 2, after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative declined to extend them in the days prior to their expiration.
Forwarder Agrees to Shipper and Importer Verification Requirements in Trademark Settlement With Nike
A New Jersey freight forwarder has agreed to shipper and importer verification requirements, as well as conditions on acting as a go-between for customs brokers and importers, as part of a settlement of a trademark suit filed by Nike in the Southern New York U.S. District Court.
FDA is issuing new regulations that allow importation of prescription drugs from Canada. Under the final rule, FDA may approve “Section 804 Importation Programs” (SIPs) sponsored by a state, tribal or territorial governmental entity. The registered wholesaler or pharmacy identified by the SIP as the importer could then import the specified drug from an FDA-registered, Health Canada-licensed wholesaler that buys the drug directly from its manufacturer. The final rule is set for publication in the Oct. 1 Federal Register, and takes effect Nov. 30.
A multinational engineering company will pay more than $22.2 million to resolve a False Claims Act whistleblower lawsuit related to the evasion of customs and antidumping and countervailing duties. Germany-based Linde GmbH and its U.S. affiliate, Linde Engineering North America, allegedly misrepresented the nature, classification, and valuation of imported merchandise, as well as the applicability of free trade agreements, so as not to pay tariffs, the Department of Justice said in a Sept. 25 news release.
A hotly contested racketeering lawsuit involving antidumping duties on garlic imports from China has reached an end, after Harmoni International opted to drop its case before the Central California U.S. District Court Sept. 16. Lawyers for the defendants in the case claimed victory for their clients, and all Americans, in a news release emailed the following day. Harmoni’s lawyer tells a different tale, saying the case had largely wrapped up and it was no longer in his client’s financial interest to continue.
The Commerce Department is reopening the period for comments on its Section 232 investigation into potential tariffs or other import restrictions on vanadium, it said in a notice released Sept. 24. The agency will now accept comments for an additional 14 days, until Oct. 9. The comment period had originally run until July 20 (rebuttals were due Aug. 17) (see 2006020041). The investigation was requested in November 2019 by two domestic producers, AMG Vanadium and U.S. Vanadium.
Importers and domestic producers predictably clashed over the Commerce Department’s recently proposed changes to its antidumping and countervailing duty regulations (see 2008120037), in comments recently submitted to the agency. While domestic industry urged Commerce to move forward with the changes, importers challenged proposed changes to liquidation timelines in scope inquiries, as well as tighter deadlines that they said make it harder to defend from AD/CVD cases.