Publication
US/Ukraine minerals deal: Digging into the detail
The United States and Ukraine governments have announced the signature of an agreement of a minerals deal for Ukraine.
Author:
United States | Publication | September 17, 2020
On September 10, 2020, a group of importers filed a lawsuit in the US Court of International Trade (CIT) alleging that the US Trade Representative (USTR) exceeded its power when it issued the List 3 tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (the Trade Act). Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the tariffs on products covered by List 3 were not authorized under Section 301 and were arbitrarily and unlawfully promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs are seeking to have the CIT declare the List 3 tariffs as invalid, order the US government to refund the plaintiffs all duties they paid on List 3 products (plus interest), and to enjoin the US government from collecting further List 3 tariffs from plaintiffs.
The US government is sure to vigorously contest the suit and is generally entitled to a significant amount of deference on such actions. Moreover, even if the plaintiffs succeed at the CIT, the decision would likely be subject to multiple appeals and, therefore, any positive outcome would likely be years away.
That being said, the same arguments made by the plaintiffs could be similarly advanced by any party that has paid Section 301 tariffs on List 3 (or 4A) products. The CIT's statute of limitations for such claims, however, is two years from the date the cause of action accrues. In this case, we understand the cause of action accrued on September 21, 2018, the date the USTR published the Federal Register notice announcing the List 3 duties. Thus, any party that has paid duties on List 3 products should quickly evaluate the merits of submitting a similar claim at the CIT, and, if they elect to proceed, should ensure their complaint is filed by September 21, 2020.
We anticipate that all complaints that are premised on similar arguments will, at some point, be consolidated at the CIT.
The List 4 tariffs could be similarly challenged but, because the relevant Federal Register notice imposing such tariffs was not issued until August 2019, parties have another year to evaluate whether to file a notice contesting those tariffs.
Special thanks to law clerk Eddie Skolnick, who works under the supervision of Stefan Reisinger, for his assistance in the preparation of this content.
Publication
The United States and Ukraine governments have announced the signature of an agreement of a minerals deal for Ukraine.
Publication
This newsletter will keep employers up to date on Canadian employment and labour developments and best practices.
Publication
In this edition we provide a reminder of the main provisions and implications of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 since its Royal Assent, and discuss the potential for a long-awaited strategic shift for infrastructure projects following the formation of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority. We also discuss the outcome and significance of an interesting court of appeal case considering boundary agreements and provide an update on recent tax events affecting the real estate sector.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2025