1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |USTR Commences Annual GSP Review of Competitive Need Limits

USTR Commences Annual GSP Review of Competitive Need Limits

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.08

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has published a notice in the Federal Register regarding the 2008 annual product review of competitive need limitations (CNL) under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program. 73 Fed. Reg. 61,444 (Oct. 16, 2008). The GSP program provides for the duty-free importation of designated articles from developing countries. However, if a developing country exports a quantity of the product to the United States exceeding the CNLs set by statute, that product will lose its GSP duty-free status, unless a waiver of the CNL is granted for that product.

Typically, the USTR publishes a "warning list" of products that may exceed CNLs for the present year. Notably, in conjunction with its 2008 Annual Review of the GSP program, the USTR will not be publishing a "warning list" this year. Instead, each interested party is responsible for conducting its own review of 2008 import data, which can be found on the International Trade Commission's website (http://dataweb.usitc.gov).

Parties who import using GSP preferences should take note of this development and ensure they are within the CNL limits. Those wishing to request CNL waivers for GSP-eligible products must submit petitions to the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee. The deadline for those petitions to be considered in the 2008 annual review is 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 13, 2008.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25

File First, Facts Later? Eleventh Circuit Says That Discovery Can Inform False Claims Act Allegations in Amended Complaints

On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending.  Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss.  And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit.  Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage.  Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending.  While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss....