In honor of CITBA’s centennial, we have reached out to some of the organization’s past presidents to learn about their time with CITBA and the evolution of the bar and the practice over the years.

In this issue, we hear from Brian Goldstein, who served as Vice-President of CITBA from 1990 to 1991 and as President from 1992 to 1993, and Terry Stewart, who served as CITBA’s president from 1998 to 2000.

Brian Goldstein

As you can well imagine, after thirty-three years, it is quite difficult to recall the goals that I set for my presidency. One particular goal aimed at the expansion of CITBA membership from one primarily focused on customs law practice to a broader, international trade practice. Another area of focus was the continued development of strong, viable committees. CITBA was often called upon by the CIT to assist on projects, including Judicial Conferences, guest speakers, and other special events, including continued legal education. Without doubt, there was a clear overlap of interest in the area of continued legal education.

It goes without saying that 2025 and into 2026 tariffs and trade have dominated the news at a level not seen in all my prior years of legal practice in this field. The “biggest” change in the practice of international trade law that I have experienced must include the current developments. However, because my career in this field dates back to 1966, let’s use that date as a starting point.

In that year I joined the staff of the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Customs Section with offices at 201 Varick Street. That building was also the home of the Customs Court. The Customs Section was led by Andrew P. Vance who later became a Partner in the firm of Barnes, Richardson & Colburn. I am forever grateful to his guidance and teachings as that experience with Justice was the launching pad into my career.

Back in 1969 we were still facing periodic questions concerning American selling Price customs valuation and something called the “Final List” of products that were to be appraised by Customs using that statute. Changes made by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Public Law 96-39 (July 26, 1979) brought major changes to the practice of International trade law. The Act implemented GAAT agreements, added a new countervailing and anti-dumping duties provision to the Tariff Act of 1930, amended valuation standards applied to imported merchandise and many more significant changes.

The transition from the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) to the Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTSUS) effective January 1, 1989, Omnibus Trade and Competitive Act of 1988 merit inclusion in the category of major changes. The introduction of General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs); United States Notes; Section and Chapter Notes added numerous layers to the process of proper classification.

With respect to regional trade agreements, I recall that during my term as president, CITBA was called upon to provide comments and recommendations relating to certain provisions of the proposed NAFTA Agreement. The NAFTA panel review process of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty decisions by administrative agencies of the three countries, was troublesome as it eliminated judicial review by US courts. Both NAFTA and the current USMCA adopted the binational review process. This is made clear by the explicit limitation on CIT jurisdiction as found in 28 U.S.C. 1581(i)(2)(B).

Backing up for a moment . . . to the biggest changes in the practice of international trade law that I have observed, The Customs Court Act of 1980 should go to the head of the class. That Act transformed the Customs Court, an administrative tribunal into an Article III Court with all powers in law and equity exercised by federal district courts. Moreover, it established a broad exclusive jurisdiction for the court, (28 U.S.C. 1581(a) through (h), and subject to certain limitations, section 1581(i). That section has had major impact upon our practice.

A personal highlight was being lead counsel in U.S. Shoe Corporation v. United States, 513 U.S. 360 (1998). That case challenged the constitutionality of the Harbor Maintenance Tax on exports by vessel. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the tax was unconstitutional as it was in violation of the Export Clause of the Constitution. It was a great honor to have argued the case before the CIT and the CAFC.

Current cases such as HMTX Industries (Section 301 tariffs on products from China); AGS Company Automotive Solutions (challenge to duties imposed pursuant to alleged authorization under the IEEPA) are further examples of the significant trade cases in which CITBA members have excelled in advocacy on behalf of their clients on issues that have major impact on trade policies and the powers of government.

Terry Stewart

What were your goals for your presidency of CITBA and how did they evolve over time?

I got involved with CITBA Committees as early as 1982, serving on five committees through 1996 (including Chair of the International Trade Committee 1990-1996). I was on the Board beginning in 1990 and was President 1998-2000. Possible I was the first President from a largely trade remedy practice and from outside of NYC. My objectives or goals (if I recall correctly) was to ensure that CITBA participation on issues before the Court or the agencies reflected the interests of all members and not simply the interests of the individuals generating briefs or proposals. I had an excellent Board during my time as President, so the functioning of CITBA proceeded normally, including the filing of amicus briefs, written comments to Customs, etc. As my answer to the second question shows, there were massive changes in the practice between 1979 and 2000. The bar had drafted lists of possible changes for the Court’s jurisdiction in 1994 and continued to pursue such changes in 2000, including changes flowing from the creation of the WTO. Our Committee system was working well and was not further expanded during my tenure as President as I recall. 

Not sure the following happened while I was President, but it was important from my perspective:

The Court was having what it perceived as problems in some cases with Justice/Commerce complying with court orders. Justice perceived that it had more flexibility in complying if it was planning on appeal. There was also tension between some judges on the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and some judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). I recall working with others to get one or more informal meetings between the agencies and the Court (and with the CAFC as I recall) to ree stablish normal relations. Good people in each court/agency trying their best. My recollection is that relations returned to a normal state quickly.

What have been the biggest changes in the practice of international trade law that you have observed during your career?

I graduated from law school in 1979 and became a lawyer as the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 was becoming law. There were major changes to trade remedy laws (CVD and AD in particular) and the creation of significant judicial review. Concerns over Treasury’s handling of trade remedy laws led to the movement of administering those laws to the U.S. Department of Commerce in 1980. The U.S. Customs Court became the U.S. Court of International Trade in 1980 with expanded powers and the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals became the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 with expanded jurisdiction. So there was tremendous change in the handling of trade remedy cases in the early years of my being a lawyer — major changes at the agencies and at the courts reviewing (largely for the first time) the agencies handling of the laws.

Over the past forty-six years, the importance of other laws and remedies increased significantly. Most obviously, the importance of Section 337 cases largely dealing with imports that violate intellectual property rights (particularly patents). Multibillion dollar cases involving tech products like cell phones and other products arose with the changing technology landscape. While judicial review of 337 decisions is at the CAFC, enforcement actions have become part of the CIT’s jurisprudence.

Similarly, while there have been export control laws and regulations for decades, enforcement actions under these laws have increased in importance over the last four decades. The same can be said for unilateral and multilateral sanctions imposed on countries by the U.S. While there is a long history of sanctions being used, their use has become more frequent in recent decades.

While there was the U.S.-Israel FTA before I became a lawyer, NAFTA in 1994 became the first of many FTAs entered into by the U.S. during my years of practice. These agreements had trade liberalization as their objective for the signatories and that created changes in tariff treatment, some trade remedy issues (including in NAFTA challenge of trade remedy decisions outside of the courts as the usual course) and a host of other issues for domestic and foreign interests. NAFTA and other FTAs have had an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision which permit investors to challenge a host government to resolve disputes over alleged breaches in investment obligations (ISDS restricted in USMCA). Helping clients with FTA negotiations and taking advantage of the opportunities created was a much larger set of issues for lawyers practicing customs/trade over the last four decades.

The GATT Uruguay Round Agreements (negotiated 1986-1994) created wide ranging issues during negotiations both on manufactured goods, for agricultural goods (efforts to reintegrated into the multilateral rules), for services (newly added, including professions), for government procurement, trade related aspects of intellectual property, harmonization of rules of origin for most goods, agreements on standards for manufactured and agricultural goods and the modification of dispute settlement to be binding on parties or subject to compensation/retaliation if adverse rulings were not complied with. The World Trade Organization became a reality in 1995. Counsel and courts dealt with changes made that were implemented into U.S. law (including limitations on the use of Section 301); counsel also had opportunities to work with the U.S. and governments at the WTO on disputes and on pursuing changes in the wide host of agreements and other areas of potential interest for ongoing or future negotiations.

After the WTO started in 1995, U.S. law and practice under various agreements (with the overwhelming number of cases in the trade remedy area — AD and CVD) was challenged by trading partners with various changes adopted by the U.S. to comply with adverse rulings. This was a major change from prior practice and could result in multiple levels of review of administrative decisions (CIT, CAFC, United States Supreme Court, WTO). Similarly, NAFTA panels could result in Canada or Mexico receiving treatment different than other trading partners by U.S. agencies (the same could arguably be true for U.S. participants in cases in Canada or Mexico) to the extent interpretations of laws or practice differed from U.S. interpretations.

In the late 1990s, the long ongoing negotiations with China for permanent MFN treatment and support for their entry into the WTO was nearing an end and resulted in the United States - China Relations Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-286). China joined the WTO at a at the end of 2001 during the WTO’s Doha Ministerial meeting. New trade tools were included in U.S. laws and there were opportunities/needs for counsel to monitor China’s ongoing reforms as committed in their accession protocol. Over the last 25 years, trade issues with China have dominated actions in the U.S. and worldwide. Increased issues of transshipment, duty avoidance, and customs fraud have occupied a great deal of attention not simply from China but from a large number of countries where goods have been relabeled as to origin or where components from China or other countries were shipped and finished to evade tariffs and other restrictions.

Similarly, there have been a large number of accessions to the WTO since its creation in January 1995 (55 accessions after the start, current total of 166) which have presented opportunities for companies and counsel to pursue market access and compliance with the multilateral rules before a country/territory accedes. China, Taiwan, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Viet Nam, Qatar, UAE are just a small number.

Some trade remedies (e.g., Section 232 and a renewed use of Section 301) have become more important in the last ten years, particularly in the Trump terms.

The periodic increase in the dollar amount of de minimis import exemption spiked to $800 (from $200) in the U.S. in early 2016 following enactment of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. U.S. de minimis levels were generally much higher than our trading partners. The high levels of the de minimis exemption resulted in large increases in duty exempt imports. While the exemptions were frequently used, there have been ongoing concerns both about duty evasion and the possible importation of banned or illegal substances and customs fraud. The Trump Administration last year ended the $800 de minimis exemption.

Other changes reflect the change in technology including electronic research, the rise of e-commerce and questions of whether duties can/should apply to electronically traded materials, and the blossoming of AI. The decades-long evolution of supply chains also significantly expanded trade issues and challenges for companies facing changing trade and regulatory systems. While large volumes of finished goods are still imported into the U.S., there have been very large increases in the volume and value of intermediate products. The expansion of trade in services and the issues peculiar to technological change and privacy are an increasingly large part of the trade issues the U.S. and other nations face.

So there have been large and ongoing changes in areas of potential interest/importance for lawyers in the international trade field.

What have been the most important lessons you have learned from your career?

When I started out in 1979, my father reviewed the importance of the law as a profession. He urged maintaining the highest ethical conduct, affording services to all in need, understanding that zealous representation permits a full development of issues, respect for our fellow lawyers, and giving back to the bench and bar through participation in court and bar association functions, working with agencies, and striving to find areas where practice and procedures can be improved to reduce the cost and time for clients. During my career, I attempted to be worthy of the profession I had joined and to be true to the advice my father had provided me. 

What advice can you share with current CITBA members?

CITBA is a wonderful organization and has worked hard over its time to advance the interests of its members and facilitate work before the Court and with the underlying agencies. Your participation is important for the functioning of the system. Bring objectivity to the work you do within CITBA. The court and agencies deserve honest representation and a continuing effort by the lawyers who appear before them to improve the administration of justice for all concerned.