We are pleased to share a recording of Akin Gump’s webinar, “Protecting the Crown Jewels - New U.K. National Security Rules for Foreign Investment in a Post-COVID-19, Post-Brexit World.”
The clock is ticking down to the entry into force of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2020. Leading up to that date, businesses have a unique advocacy opportunity to influence the implementing regulations and associated processes, such as legislative changes to Mexico’s domestic laws. Additionally, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), along with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts, have begun issuing guidance for the trade community seeking to obtain the benefits of the agreement. At this time, these guidance documents include a petition process for automakers to request alternative staging for the automotive rules of origin as well as general interim implementation instructions for USMCA entries. Still to come are regulations regarding the automotive labor value content requirements and Uniform Regulations regarding the customs provisions. Akin Gump and our partners at Dorantes Advisors in Mexico City have jointly developed brief summaries of these guidance documents and a timeline of key actions still to take place prior to entry into force. The materials are available here in both English and Spanish.
Last week, in a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) concluded that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 does not offend the non-delegation doctrine. To most observers, the ruling does not come as a surprise, but the story on Section 232 and the non-delegation doctrine is not yet over.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) rarely sits en banc to address international trade issues that fall within its subject matter jurisdiction. It last did so nearly five years ago in Suprema, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, when it addressed the scope of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s authority under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
In just one opinion, the landscape surrounding national security tariffs has undergone a dramatic shift. In Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, an otherwise narrow dispute regarding steel imports from Turkey subject to national security tariffs, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) wrote in broad terms that Congress has placed checks on the President’s authority under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. That statute authorizes the President to take action against imports that threaten to impair the national security.
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.
The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), like most other federal courts, may issue an injunction to afford equitable relief to the parties that appear before it. Those injunctions typically bar the federal government from taking specific action. For example, the CIT may enjoin U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) from liquidating specific imports subject to a particular duty, such as an antidumping duty.
Several federal agencies—including most notably the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. Trade Representative—administer an ever-expanding body of regulatory law that addresses a broad range of issues arising in U.S. administration of various statutes governing international trade.