The Federal Maritime Commission will tack on an additional $625,000 on top of the $9.8 million that shipping company Compañía Sud Americana de Vapores has agreed to pay to settle charges of price fixing on roll-on, roll-off (ro-ro) cargo shipping services. The FMC penalty will resolve allegations that CSAV violated the Shipping Act by acting in concert with other ocean common carriers under unfiled agreements.
A listing of recent antidumping and countervailing duty messages from the Commerce Department posted to CBP's website March 5, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at addcvd.cbp.gov. (CBP occasionally adds backdated messages without otherwise indicating which message was added. ITT will include a message date in parentheses in such cases.)
The International Trade Commission published notices in the March 5 Federal Register on the following AD/CV injury, Section 337 patent, and other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will be in another ITT article):
Baxter filed on Feb. 28 a complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging hemostatic products that infringe its patents are being imported by Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Ferrosan, and Packaging Coordinators, in violation of Section 337 of the tariff act. Baxter’s FLOSEAL is a “hemostatic matrix” that, when applied to a wound with a syringe, forms clots to stop bleeding during surgical procedures. According to Baxter, Ferrosan makes a similar product, SURGIFLO, that infringes Baxter’s patented technologies. The SURGIFLO is then imported by Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, and. Packaging Coordinators turns the SURGIFLO into ready-to-use kits for Ferrosan and Ethicon. Baxter is requesting limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders banning import and sale of infringing merchandise by Ferrosan, Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, and Packaging Coordinators.
A Chinese power sports company and its U.S. affiliate have agreed pay a $725,000 penalty to settle charges that they illegally imported motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles, said the Environmental Protection Agency on March 4. Between 2007 and 2013, Zhejiang CFMOTO Power Co., Chunfeng Holding Group Co., and their U.S. distributor CFMOTO Powersports imported over 12,000 motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles without the required emissions certifications, said EPA. Of those 12,000 vehicles, EPA found that 993 had fuel tanks that did not operate properly to control gasoline vapors, and that about 1,400 vehicles were imported without proper emission control information labels, it said.
On March 4 the Food and Drug Administration posted new and revised versions of the following Import Alerts on the detention without physical examination of:
On March 4 the Foreign Agricultural Service posted the following GAIN reports:
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service announced changes March 4 to Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) electronic manuals. While some changes are minor, other changes may affect the admissibility of the plant products, including fruits, vegetables, and flowers.
The Court of International Trade again sent back the results of the 2007-08 antidumping duty administrative review on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from South Korea (A-580-816). CIT had in 2012 remanded the AD rates for South Korean exporters of the product in response to a challenge from Union Steel, Dongbu, and Hyundai HYSCO, as well as domestic producer U.S. Steel (see 12053008). Commerce came back with lower AD rates for the three South Korean exporters, but CIT on March 4 again found fault and remanded.
The Court of International Trade on March 3 went back to the drawing board to implement a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirming the Commerce Department’s original antidumping duty rate for an exporter of pasta from Italy (A-475-818) after the trade court had thrice remanded over the last five years. Commerce had calculated an AD duty rate of 18.18% for Atar in the 2004-05 administrative review on pasta from Italy, but CIT took issue with the rate in a series of decisions until finally in 2012 affirming an AD rate for Atar of 11.76% (see 12080206). But a year later, the Appeals Court reversed the remands, finding Commerce had in fact correctly calculated Atar’s rate in the final results (see 13091128). CIT’s decision now affirms the final results rate of 18.18% in light of the reversal from CAFC. Cash deposit rates for Atar will remain at zero, however, because of a Section 129 decision that took effect July 8, 2012.