A Chinese national pleaded guilty Aug. 19 to attempting to illegally export large quantities of aerospace grade carbon fiber to China in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of New York said. Ming Suan Zhang, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, was arrested after trying to acquire a sample of the carbon fiber, which a news release described as a “high-tech material used frequently in the military, defense and aerospace industries.” The carbon fiber could be detrimental to U.S. foreign policy or national security, and is closely regulated by the Department of Commerce “to combat nuclear proliferation and terrorism,” the release said.

Importers of goods from China and Vietnam who are subject to antidumping duties must pay at the exporter’s rate, and not the producer’s, ruled the Court of International Trade Aug. 21. That’s the case even if the exporter isn’t a respondent and gets assigned the China- or Vietnam-wide rate, because the country-wide rate serves as a specific AD rate to every non-separate rate exporter, CIT said. Because the regulations prefer specific exporter rates to producer rates, subject merchandise produced by a company with a low separate rate, but exported by a company that doesn’t prove separate rate status, will enter at the exporter’s high China- or Vietnam-wide rate, the court said.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 15 remanded the final results of the 2009-10 antidumping duty administrative review on activated carbon from China, citing several issues with the average rates assigned to non-individually reviewed “separate rate” companies. Because the rates for the only individually reviewed companies were de minimis, Commerce based the $0.28/kg average rate for seven other companies on rates calculated for different companies in a previous review. That’s too far from the commercial reality of the separate rate companies, the court said. CIT also remanded the Commerce’s decision to use a “specific” per kilogram rate for one of the separate rate companies, as well as the agency’s calculation of surrogate values for inputs.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a bid by Ashley Furniture and Ethan Allan for funds under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA, also known as the Byrd Amendment). The two domestic furniture companies argued they were eligible for antidumping and countervailing duties paid under the wooden bedroom furniture from China orders, simply because they responded when the International Trade Commission asked whether they supported the original AD/CVD petitions. Ashley Furniture had answered that it opposed the petition, while Ethan Allan checked the box for “take no position.” According to the two companies, any sort of response qualified as support because it helped the ITC in the investigation. Like the Court of International Trade, the appeals court rejected the argument. Although in a similar case the court had ruled Chez Sidney qualified for CDSOA funds even though it took no position in the final phase questionnaire, that case was different because Chez Sidney checked the box for support of AD/CV duties during the preliminary phase, CAFC said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed on Aug. 19 the Court of International Trade’s dismissal of an antidumping duty lawsuit on steel nails from China. The lower court had declined to rule on Itochu Building Products’ challenge to the revocation date for four types of nails, citing a failure to fully argue its case before Commerce. Itochu had only argued for an earlier revocation date before the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review, and not in the run-up to the final results, so it didn’t exhaust its administrative remedies, CIT had said (see 12092127). But the appeals court reversed on Aug. 19, because submitting comments after Commerce had already rejected Itochu’s arguments at the preliminary stage would have served no purpose, and actually would have harmed the company.

An Iranian national, Seyed Amin Ghorashi Sarvestani, was sentenced Aug. 14 for conspiring to export goods, including satellite technology and hardware, from the U.S. to Iran, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York said in a press release. Ghorashi was an owner, managing director and director of two related companies based in the United Arab Emirates, where he “worked with others to export electronic equipment used for satellite communications and data transfer, as well as other goods” from the U.S. to Iran. According to the press release, the exports violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Statements during the plea proceeding indicated the exports were completed without required approval from the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

The Court of International Trade ruled Aug. 16 that Springs Creative Product Group’s (SCPG) “Make-it-Yourself No-Sew Fleece Throw Kits” are properly classified as toys in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and not as its constituent fabric as CBP had argued. The throw kits are mainly intended for fun, and their eventual use as blankets is secondary, the court said. Significantly, the throw kits sell for a substantial price premium over finished throws.

Five members of an "international counterfeit goods conspiracy" pleaded guilty to their involvement in importation of counterfeit goods and money laundering, said the U.S. Attorney’s Office of New Jersey. According to court documents, the conspirators imported over 35 containers of counterfeit goods from August 2008 through February 2012. The imports had a total retail value of over $300 million and included cigarettes, handbags and sneakers, said U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman. The conspirators had used a corporation to bring the goods through the Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal, using fraudulent customs paperwork that “falsely declared the goods within the containers.”

The Court of International Trade sustained on Aug. 8 the antidumping duty rate of $1.28 per kilogram assigned to Qingdao Sea-Line Trading in a new shipper review on fresh garlic from China (A-570-851). CIT had remanded in April 2012 for Commerce to reconsider the surrogate values used to calculate the company’s AD rate (see 12040402). Although Commerce made no changes to its calculations, CIT accepted the agency’s new explanations for why it used a non-contemporaneous surrogate value, and why it chose certain financial statements over others.

A New York antiques dealer pleaded guilty on Aug. 7 to conspiracy to smuggle artifacts made from rhinoceros horns and ivory in violation of wildlife trafficking laws, said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Qiang Wang, aka Jeffrey Wang, told the Southern New York District Court that he conspired with others to export libation cups carved from rhinoceros horns to Hong Kong and China, without declaring them to CBP or the Fish and Wildlife Service. He faces a maximum of five years in prison.