Out now! Episode 10 of Law Sh!t You Should Know featuring DTL President Jennifer Diaz. The episode dives deep into the complex world of international trade and covers a variety of topics including duties, trademark recordations, forced labor, seizures, classification, anti dumping and countervailing duties, importers of record, and more. Watch below or listen here.
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court overturned their decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that gave federal agencies great leeway in interpretation of laws. Instead of deferring to agencies, judges may now substitute their own interpretation of the law, making it easier to overturn agency regulations across the federal government.
In 1984, the Supreme Court decided Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – the case involved the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Air Act. The Court ruled that since the law was ambiguous, the EPA (and other federal agencies) should have leeway to interpret the statute. Further, Chevron said that courts should uphold the agency’s interpretation, even if the agency’s reading differs from what the court believes is the best statutory interpretation, as long as it is reasonable.
This principle became known as “Chevron deference” and came to be one of the most consequential decisions in Administrative Law. In the 40 years since Chevron, federal courts have cited the decision more than 18,000 times.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court threw out the “Chevron deference” principle, calling it inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act – the federal law that governs the procedures federal agencies must follow and how courts are to review actions by the agencies. The decision stated that it is the responsibility of the courts to decide what the laws mean, not the agencies, and that Congress […]
The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published its first quarterly update of the Boycott Requester List. The list notifies companies, freight forwarders, financial entities, and individuals of potential sources of boycott-related requests that they may receive.
BIS is charged with enforcing anti-boycott laws under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The laws prohibit U.S. companies from taking actions in furtherance of a boycott maintained by a foreign country against a country friendly to the United States. Common boycott requests include:
U.S. persons must report boycott-related requests to BIS’s Office of Anti-boycott Compliance (OAC).
OAC maintains a boycott-requester list to raise awareness and assist U.S. persons in identifying sources of boycott-related requests.
Entities on the list have been reported by a U.S. person to BIS via a request report form. The list is updated quarterly but is not an exhaustive list of entities that may make these requests.
The most recent update to the list includes 57 additions and the removal of 127 entities.
Requesting countries added in the most recent update include:
Exporters have a duty to remain vigilant in spotting boycott-related requests and reporting them to […]
Here is a recap of the latest customs and international trade law news:
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
The American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition filed petitions for the imposition of antidumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties on the imports of certain low speed personal transportation vehicles (“CLSPTV”) from China.
Full list of exporters here. Full list of importers here.
Background on AD/CVD Investigations
Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments.
Scope of the Investigation
This petition covers CLSPTVs and subassemblies thereof. CLSPTVs meeting this description are generally open air vehicles with a minimum of four wheels, a steering wheel, a traditional side-by-side or in- line row seating arrangement (i.e., non- straddle), foot operated accelerator and brake pedals, and a gross vehicle weight of no greater than 5,500 pounds.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are all-terrain vehicles, multipurpose off highway utility vehicles, and recreational off-highway vehicles. Full scope here.
Next Steps
The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within 20 days. The USITC […]
