The U.S. and surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. both wrote to the Court of International Trade following an oral argument to give notice of their intent to redact information from the proceeding's transcript. The government said it intends to redact the identity of the surety firm for the single transaction bonds at issue in the customs penalty suit, while Aegis said it is looking to redact the amount of the bonds issued by Hartford Insurance Co., the amount of CBP's demand on Hartford and the amount of CBP's demand on Aegis (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).
A ban on imports of Apple watches is on hold, after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 27 granted Apple's bid for an interim stay of the International Trade Commission's import ban in a patent dispute concerning the watches' medical monitoring technology (Apple Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. # 24-1285).
The Court of International Trade need not be bound by the a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that said Section 232 duties are "United States import duties" that can be deducted from U.S. price, exporter Nippon Steel Corp. argued in a Dec. 22 reply brief (Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00533).
A Georgia businessman, a former Honduran government official and a former Florida resident were charged with allegedly participating in a scheme to pay and hide bribes to Honduran government officials to "secure contracts to provide uniforms and other goods" to the Honduran National Police, DOJ said.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 26 granted a request from the U.S. for 3,000 additional words for a reply brief in a case involving use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping and two accounting items. The government said each of the three matters raised in the case is "complex and technical in nature" (see 2310250039), creating "good cause" for the additional words (Marmen v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).
The Court of International Trade "should not entertain" importer Greentech Energy Solution's challenge to CBP's extension of the liquidation deadline for the 19 entries at issue since it doesn't appear in Greentech's amended complaint, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief Dec. 22, the government said that even if the claim was in the complaint, the trade court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear it since Greentech should have filed a protest with CBP to first challenge the decision (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a text-only order on Dec. 22 gave plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation more time to file their reply brief. The plaintiffs, led by HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, now have until Feb. 12 to file their reply after counsel for the companies said they needed more time due to their "significant additional client responsibilities and obligations that substantially interfere with their ability to file the reply brief by the current deadline" (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The U.S. misread the statute governing deemed liquidation for drawback claims to create exception to the rule where none exists, importer Performance Additives argued Dec. 26 (Performance Additives v. United States, CIT # 22-00044).
Antidumping duty petitioner the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group argued in a new lawsuit at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department "improperly calculated" exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's duty drawback adjustment (The Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group v. United States, CIT # 23-00251).