Moore & Bruce, LLP is involved in all aspects of the Federal regulation of import and export transactions. Increasingly, complex international trade problems involve more than a single Federal agency and require representation before the Congress and/or specialized Federal courts with jurisdiction over international trade matters. The Firm’s attorneys are experienced practitioners before all three branches of the US government.

Clients include importers, exporters, domestic manufacturers concerned about foreign competition, and foreign manufacturers seeking to preserve access to US markets.  Our international trade practice is described below.

“Import Relief”.  Although the US market is among the most open in the world, the manner in which foreign companies may compete is governed by a matrix of Federal statutes that in certain circumstances provide mechanisms for domestic industries to limit competition from abroad.  These “import relief” statutes include the antidumping laws, which remedy price discrimination in international markets; the countervailing duty laws, which remedy export subsidization by foreign governments; the “escape clause”, which allows the imposition of quotas or higher tariffs on imports which have increased to the point where the domestic industry is experiencing “serious injury”; Section 337, which remedies unfair trade practices involving imports; and Section 301, which, although directed at opening foreign markets, allows for retaliation against imports.

Some of the significant matters that members of the Firm have handled include:

Representation before the Office of the United States Trade Representative of an importer of semiconductor testing equipment threatened with the loss of its entire US market under Section 301 in retaliation for alleged breaches by Japan of a bilateral trade agreement;

Representation of the largest U.S. producer of electric forklift trucks in a series of escape clause proceedings before the International Trade Commission;

Representation of a Slovenian fruit juice manufacturer in an antidumping investigation;

Prosecution of an unfair competition action before the International Trade Commission under Section 337 on behalf of a U.S. manufacturer of woodworking tools for infringement of trade dress and unauthorized use of its marketing materials.

“Regulated Trade”. Although the U.S. market is generally regarded as a relatively open trading environment, increasing protectionist pressures in certain industrial sectors have resulted in the establishment of regulatory regimes which make import transactions to the U.S. more resemble “negotiated trade”.  We are frequently called upon to render advice to importers of products in these sectors.  Typical problems involve importers needing to facilitate entries of restricted merchandise or requiring advice on compliance issues and "country of origin" problems.

The Firm is also experienced in matters within the jurisdiction of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of Treasury, concerning restrictions on offshore trade.  This agency regulates transactions with such countries as Belarus, Burma, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, and Zimbabwe.  It also regulates certain activities, such as, narcotics trafficking and trading in defined rough diamonds.

Trade Policy. We have also been called upon to counsel foreign governments, trading companies and importers on the implications of administrative and legislative actions relating to international trade.

The Firm has an active legislative practice. For example, we represented various “Shared FSC” entities before the Congress, the Treasury Department and the Office of the US Trade Representative in connection with the enactment of legislation designed to replace the Foreign Sales Corporation provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, which the World Trade Organization had determined constituted illegal export subsidies.  In addition, during Congressional consideration of the Omnibus Trade Act, members of the Firm engaged in intensive lobbying against provisions that could have forced termination of a client’s business in the U.S. if the Senate-passed version of the legislation had been enacted.