The Tariff Act's customs penalty statute, and not the False Claims Act, governs customs penalties for fraud, gross negligence and negligence, and is the exclusive means to recover liquidated antidumping duties, appellant Sigma told the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the 9th Circuit in a June 12 brief. Responding to the court's order for supplemental briefing on the two laws, Sigma said 19 U.S.C. 1592 is more specific than the False Claims Act and has a "detailed and comprehensive legal regime," including specific provisions addressing customs fraud (Island Industries v. Sigma, 9th Cir. # 22-55063).
The Commerce Department said that hardwood plywood exported to the U.S. by the Vietnam Finewood Company made using two-ply panels imported into Vietnam from China are outside the scope of antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood from China, in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on June 15. The agency said under protest that the goods are not subject to the duties since the trade court ruled that the scope language "unambiguously" shows that the orders do not include Chinese two-ply panels (Vietnam Finewood Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00049).
Judge Stephen Vaden at the Court of International Trade said that parties in his cases that use text drafted from a generative artificial intelligence program, such as ChatGPT and Google Bard, must disclose the programs used and the parts of the text drafted by AI. Parties also must submit a certification saying that the use of the AI program "has not resulted in the disclosure of any confidential or business proprietary information to any unauthorized party."
South Korean company Anyclo International pleaded guilty to evading customs duties on clothing it imported, agreeing to a civil settlement with the U.S. under which it will pay $2.05 million to the U.S. in restitution, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey announced. A $250,000 criminal fine also was levied. Anyclo will pay the settlement, plus interest, over 15 months to resolve potential charges under the False Claims Act.
The Commerce Department assigned exporter Double Coin Holdings the 105.31% China-wide dumping rate in its June 15 remand results filed in a suit on an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on off-the-road tires from China. The trade court previously remanded the case so that Commerce could hit the company with the China-wide rate after finding that Double Coin failed to rebut the presumption of government control (China Manufacturing Alliance v. United States, CIT # 15-00124).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, for failing to file an opening brief. The company filed its suit to contest CBP's inaction on its requests to void two denied protests on Berger's Canvas Banner Matisse coated fabric imports, which were hit with antidumping duties on artist canvas from China. Berger claimed that the imports were not subject to the order and CBP should not have liquidated the entries since the Commerce Department had opened a scope inquiry on the imports. After the Court of International Trade tossed the suit for lack of jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit in March rejected Berger's bid for a temporary injunction, which would have required CBP to return the goods to unliquidated status or suspend the firm's protests (see 2303160023) (Printing Textiles, dba Berger Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1576).
Should the Commerce Department's ACCESS system go down while counsel is attempting to submit documents in a proceeding with the agency, the attorney should document everything to avoid consequences for missed deadlines, said Evangeline Keenan, director of the APO/dockets unit at Commerce, during panel discussion June 14 at the Georgetown Law International Trade Update conference. Speaking on the limits of the ACCESS platform, Keenan said that the agency "will take responsibility if ACCESS is causing problems," while noting that if the issue resides with the attorney's or paralegal's own internet access, then it's their responsibility.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its finding that the Commerce Department is prohibited from using a transaction-specific margin when employing total adverse facts available, antidumping duty petitioner American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring argued in a response to a U.S. motion for reconsideration. The petitioner said reconsideration is needed since the court "decided an issue that was not presented by any party" (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group v. U.S., CIT # 19-00144).
The Commerce Department's ruling that GreenFirst Forest Products is the successor to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM) in a changed circumstances review as part of an antidumping duty proceeding does not affect the agency's decision finding that GreenFirst is not RYAM's successor in the parallel countervailing duty proceeding, the U.S. said. Responding to GreenFirst's notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade, the government said standards for initiating a CCR differ for AD and CVD cases (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).