About Jeremy

Jeremy Dutra is a partner in the International Trade & Foreign Investment Practice Group. He advises importers, US manufacturers and foreign producers and exporters on every stage of the import process, from pre-entry planning and compliance through administrative proceedings and appeals. Because his practice spans US Customs & Border Protection (CBP), the US Department of Commerce, the US International Trade Commission (USITC) and the federal courts, clients can rely on a single advisor for issues that often cross agency lines.

On the customs side, Jeremy represents clients before CBP across the full range of import matters. He obtains advance binding rulings on tariff classification, country of origin and valuation, and he prepares and prosecutes protests challenging CBP’s liquidation decisions. He guides clients through CBP audits, from the initial entrance conference through findings and corrective action, and he petitions for relief from liquidated damages and penalties. He also counsels importers on origin and tariff exposure under Section 232, Section 301 and International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), including tariff refund recovery and on preferential treatment under the USMCA. In addition, he defends importers in Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) evasion investigations.

Jeremy also represents foreign producers, US importers and other interested parties in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. This work includes original investigations and sunset reviews before Commerce and the USITC, as well as administrative reviews before Commerce. He also handles scope rulings at the US Department of Commerce (Commerce), helping clients determine whether their products fall within an existing order and advocating for favorable scope determinations.

Jeremy litigates trade and customs disputes before the US Court of International Trade and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. These cases include challenges to Commerce antidumping and countervailing duty determinations and scope rulings, USITC injury determinations, CBP evasion determinations and denied protests. He has also represented parties in Section 337 unfair import investigations before the USITC.

Jeremy’s trade practice is complemented by substantial experience in government contracts. He advises clients on teaming agreements and subcontracts, flow-down obligations, bid protests before the Court of Federal Claims and US Government Accountability Office (GAO), as well as internal audits and investigations.

Jeremy regularly advises manufacturers, suppliers and government contractors on compliance with domestic preference and trade agreement requirements. These include the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA), the Buy American Act, the Buy America requirements for federally funded transportation and infrastructure programs and the Trade Agreements Act (TAA). His customs practice gives him a distinct advantage in this work. The country-of-origin and substantial transformation principles he applies daily before CBP are the same principles that decide whether a product qualifies as domestic, or as a designated country end product. Drawing on that experience, Jeremy counsels clients on domestic sourcing strategy and evaluates whether their products and components meet applicable domestic content thresholds under both existing supply chains and proposed sourcing or manufacturing changes. He also helps clients understand how changes in suppliers, manufacturing locations or production processes affect their eligibility for federal contracts and federally funded projects. Where useful, he obtains CBP final determinations on origin for government procurement purposes. He also helps clients structure compliance programs, certifications and supplier documentation to reduce the risk of bid protests, False Claims Act exposure and contract disputes.

Earlier in his career, Jeremy built a broad litigation practice in federal and state courts, handling intellectual property, antitrust and complex commercial disputes. That experience continues to inform his approach to contested trade proceedings.

Experience

  • Successfully defended US importer against allegations by a competitor of evasion of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, which involved proceedings before US Customs & Border Protection (CBP’s), US Department of Commerce in a covered merchandise inquiry and proceedings before the US Court of International Trade, which affirmed CBP’s complete reversal of its initial evasion determination on remand.
  • Successfully defended US importer of door threshold assemblies against allegations by a competitor of evasion of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China in which the US Court of International Trade reversed US Customs & Border Protection’s evasion determination as unlawful and unsupported by evidence, and, further held that CBP had no basis to institute the evasion investigation.
  • Successfully challenged before the US Court of International Trade a US Department of Commerce scope ruling under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China.
  • Successfully challenged before the US Court of International Trade a US Department of Commerce’s application of adverse facts available against Chinese producer during an annual review of the countervailing duty order on forged steel fittings from China, which resulted in a substantially reduced subsidy rate.
  • Successfully represented Turkish producer before the US International Trade Commission during the antidumping and countervailing duty investigation of dried tart cherries from Turkey, which resulted in a negative injury and negative threat of injury determination.
  • Successfully represented US importer before the US International Trade Commission during the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of urea ammonium nitrate solutions from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago, which resulted in a negative injury and negative threat of injury determination.
  • Successfully challenged, before the US Court of Federal Claims and US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a competition conducted by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for failure to comply with the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act.
  • Successfully defended a network services company against a protest filed at the US Court of Federal Claims (Case No. 15-1541) and appealed to US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2012-1655) against an information technology services contract.
  • Successfully defended major US metals distributor in a trade secrets-based Section 337 unfair imports dispute before the US International Trade Commission involving stainless steel, resulting in termination of distributor from the investigation and no remedy issued against it.
  • Successfully defended power management company in patent infringement suit involving electronic power distribution units.
  • Successfully defended a network services company against multiple protests filed at the US Court of Federal Claims (Case Nos. 11-400C & 11-416C) and appealed to US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2012-5039) against a US$500 million information technology services contract. In securing complete victory for our client, we made new law clarifying the requirements for timely filing protests challenging the terms of a solicitation.
  • Successfully defended a GAO protest of an award to a client by the US Agency for International Development.
  • Successfully defended a manufacturer of truck transmissions accused of patent infringement; securing a summary judgment of non-infringement from the district court, which the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • Securing dismissal of a client from a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the US Court of Federal Claims.
  • Representing a multifamily real estate investment firm before the Virginia Supreme Court, securing reversal of a lower court decision, which resulted in a vacatur of a multimillion-dollar arbitration award. In securing complete victory for our client, we made new law in Virginia clarifying that the court, not an arbitrator, has jurisdiction in the first instance to determine whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
  • Representing Japan- and US-based freight forwarders in connection with a US Department of Justice (DOJ) criminal price-fixing investigation and related civil class actions.
  • Defending a compressor manufacturer regarding a DOJ criminal price-fixing investigation and related civil class actions.
  • Representing a major sports franchise and an affiliated ticketing company in private litigation alleging antitrust violations against a competing ticketing company.
  • Defending an insurance broker in a class action alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws.
  • Defending a leading producer of flat glass in an antitrust action alleging price fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Credentials

Education
  • Georgetown University, J.D., cum laude, member, The Tax Lawyer, 2003
  • The George Washington University, B.A., summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 2000
Admissions
  • Virginia, 2018
  • District of Columbia, 2004
  • Maryland, 2004
Courts
  • U.S. Ct. of App., District of Columbia Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of App., Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of App., Fourth Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of App., Sixth Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of Federal Claims
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Columbia
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Maryland
  • U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Michigan
  • U.S. Court of International Trade
  • U.S. Supreme Court