International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 1
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.20.06
Inside this issue:
- CHINA IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- DUTY RECOVERY : Many importers and manufacturers pay unnecessary duty on imported merchandise, either directly or as a cost of procured materials
- BILATERAL TRADE: The proposed U.S. – Korea FTA will be the most commercially significant FTA the U.S. has negotiated since NAFTA
- FOREIGN INVESTMENTS: New Indian investment rules allow foreign retailers to set up majority-owned stores in India – a high-growth market eyed by foreign retailers for years
- AIR TRANSPORT: Controversial U.S. DOT proposal to attract investment in the U.S. Airlines draws fire from both sides of the pond rather than hope for Open Skies
- SANCTIONS: The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury has issued an interim final rule outlining a new set of enforcement procedures
- NAFTA: NAFTA provisions on “regional value content” (RVC) calculation causes serious problems for related parties
- DUTY SUSPENSION: The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) may be more relevant to your business than it sounds - at least if you are an importer of products that American factories do not produce domestically
- INTERNATIONAL IP PROTECTION: Elements of India’s new patent law which took effect in 2005 have prevented Novartis from obtaining a patent for its cancer drug “Gleevec”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
