US Businesses Testing Trump's Trade Restrictions
So far this week, FedEx has announced it followed in Huawei's footsteps and sued the Commerce Department, and The New York Times reported that major U.S. semiconductor companies, including Intel and Micron Technology, had resumed business with Huawei.
June 26, 2019 at 03:15 PM
4 minute read
The Trump administration's aggressive trade policies, including escalating tariffs on China and a ban on Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., stirred up the international trade waters, leaving U.S. businesses searching for answers in the murkiness.
But the sediment is settling and some major companies are beginning to push back against trade restrictions.
So far this week, FedEx has announced it followed in Huawei's footsteps and sued the Commerce Department, and The New York Times reported that major U.S. semiconductor companies, including Intel Corp. and Micron Technology Inc., had resumed business with Huawei.
FedEx and its attorneys at Baker McKenzie argue that trade restrictions under the Export Administration Regulations constitute a due process violation as they “unreasonably hold common carriers strictly liable for shipments that may violate the EAR without requiring evidence that the carriers had knowledge of any violations.
“This puts an impossible burden on a common carrier such as FedEx to know the origin and technological make-up of contents of all the shipments it handles and whether they comply with the EAR,” FedEx added.
The day after FedEx sued the federal government, the Times, citing anonymous sources, reported that U.S. chipmakers had resumed doing business with Huawei after having “found ways to avoid labeling goods as American-made” and were “selling millions of dollars of products to Huawei.”
Intel did not respond to a request for comment. Micron declined to discuss the report, but a company spokesman referenced a statement from Semiconductor Industry Association president and CEO John Neuffer, who said “it is now clear some items may be supplied to Huawei consistent with the Entity List and applicable regulations.”
Neuffer added, “Each company is impacted differently based on their specific products and supply chains, and each company must evaluate how best to conduct its business and remain in compliance.”
The companies in question started shipping certain tech products to Huawei based on an analysis of the list of items subject to EAR restrictions, said Kevin Wolf, a partner in the international trade and compliance practice at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C., and former Commerce Department official, in an interview Wednesday.
“If you have a foreign-made item that does not contain more than 25% controlled content, then it's not subject to the regulations,” he said. “A lot of semiconductors are not U.S. origin and the law doesn't apply to foreign-made items that don't contain U.S. origin content.”
Wolf added the “companies that stopped [shipping products to Huawei] did the right thing because the penalties for getting this wrong are quite severe. It's very normal for companies to stop shipments and do their analysis of what is legal and what is not so they don't inadvertently make a mistake.”
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEx-Red Robin CLO Joins Norton Rose Fulbright After Helping Sell Latest Employer for $4.9 Billion
Newly Public Biotech Startup Hires Life Sciences Veteran as GC
Step 1 for Successful Negotiators: Believe in Yourself
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250