The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit on Jan. 8 against importers Skyline International and Skyline Brands, along with their owner Zainulabedin Subhani, alleging that the three defendants undervalued their entries of household merchandise. The government is seeking a penalty totaling over $3.4 million for the defendants' alleged fraud along with a judgment of over $447,000, which represents the duties avoided by the defendants (United States v. Skyline International, CIT # 26-00295).

After it didn’t issue its much-anticipated decision on the fate of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on Jan. 9, the Supreme Court said on its website that it may announce more opinions on Jan. 14.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 8 held that domestic sales, "in certain circumstances, may qualify as the basis for using transaction value as an appraisement method." CAFC Judges Sharon Prost and Tiffany Cunningham, along with U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Judge Richard Andrews, held that the Court of International Trade got it right when it said the transaction value statute, 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(1), doesn't require an "international sale or a sale abroad to have occurred for a sale of merchandise to be considered as a sale 'for exportation to the United States.'"

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 29 - Jan. 4:

A recent antidumping petition on fresh winter strawberries from Mexico highlights a rarely used provision of the antidumping statute that allows the International Trade Commission to narrow the injury analysis to only a particular region in the U.S. Trade lawyers told us that there's clear statutory authority for a regional injury petition, but that the analysis may require a more pervasive showing of injury throughout the affected industry than an ordinary, nationwide injury analysis.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 22-28:

CBP unlawfully initiated an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion investigation more than 15 days after receiving an allegation of duty evasion and imposed interim measures in violation of importer Sinoboom North America's due process rights, Sinoboom argued in a Dec. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Sinoboom North America v. United States, CIT # 25-00876).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 15-21:

Importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination filed a complaint on Dec. 22 in a customs case at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its planning calendars. The complaint comes on the heels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejecting the trade court's previous ruling in a separate case brought by Blue Sky that classified the importer's goods as diaries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.2010 (see 2512040019) (Blue Sky the Color of Imagination v. United States, CIT # 22-00008).

The U.S. declined to prosecute a criminal trade fraud case against global plastic resin distributor MGI International and its subsidiaries Global Plastics and Marco Polo International, DOJ announced on Dec. 18. The agency agreed to credit a $6.8 million payment made by MGI to settle a civil case against the company for knowingly failing to pay customs duties on plastic resin entries from China in its decision not to proceed with a criminal investigation for the same conduct.