Two air freight forwarding companies in Japan agreed to plead guilty and pay the U.S. a total of $18.9 million in criminal fines in connection to a price fixing conspiracy, said the Justice Department in a press release. "K" Line Logistics will pay about $3.5 million and Yusen Logistics will pay $15.4 million, said the DOJ.

The Court of International Trade dismissed Giorgio Foods’ challenge of the International Trade Commission and CBP’s refusal to disburse funds collected as antidumping and countervailing duties to Giorgio pursuant to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA, also known as the Byrd Amendment). During the original investigation, the company had indicated no position on questionnaires on three AD duty orders on preserved mushrooms, and opposed another. CIT found two of Giorgio’s arguments, that the failure to disburse violated the Constitution on First Amendment free speech and Fifth amendment equal protection grounds, to be foreclosed by previous precedent. The court said it didn’t have jurisdiction to hear Giorgio’s final claim that defendant-intervenors unjustly enriched themselves at Giorgio’s expense by receiving some CDOSA funds to which Giorgio was entitled.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s ruling against a challenge to a scope ruling for the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on citric acid from China (A-570-937 / C-570-938). Plaintiff Global Commodities Group had argued its product containing both Chinese and third-country citric acid met the scope’s exclusion for blends of citric acid with other ingredients. According to GCG, the third-country citric acid is an “other ingredient,” and met the scope’s 60% by weight threshold for exclusion. Despite finding GCG’s interpretation “not entirely frivolous,” CAFC said it owed the International Trade Administration deference on interpretation of the scope. The interpretation was reasonable, so the court let CIT’s ruling stand.

The Court of International Trade dismissed part of a challenge to the scope exclusion on finished heat sinks in the antidumping order on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967) for lack of jurisdiction under the 28 USC 1581(i) residual provision, but the challenge will proceed on different grounds.

The Court of International Trade accepted a remand redetermination of the rescission of an antidumping duty new shipper review of honey from China (A-570-863), but following the court’s orders did not lead to a different result. The International Trade Administration considered the evidence it was ordered to accept in the remand, but still found that plaintiff Wuhu Fenglian Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Shanding Product Co. Ltd. did not have any bona fide sales, and confirmed its decision to rescind.

The Court of International Trade dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Sunshine International Trading’s challenge of CBP’s refusal of an entry of women’s apparel. Sunshine said the refusal was a protestable exclusion, and the company’s argument was bolstered by CBP’s mistaken denial, rather than rejection, of the subsequent protest. But CIT ruled that the refusal wasn’t a protestable final action, so the case couldn’t be tried under 28 USC 1581(a) denied protest jurisdiction. Sunshine’s valuation challenge was also dismissed because valuation can only be protested after liquidation, and the court found an error in the dates listed on the entry rejection to be an irrelevant clerical error.

A citizen of Ukraine pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the Arms Export Control Act by attempting to export military-grade night vision equipment from the U.S. to Ukraine, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE agents arrested Volodomyr Ponomarenko while attempting to enter the U.S. on March 23, 2011. Ponomarenko faces up to five years in prison at sentencing.

The Court of International Trade sustained the selection of Indonesia as surrogate country in the 2009-10 antidumping duty administrative review of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from China (A-570-888), despite a challenge from Foshan Shunde Yongjian that the International Trade Administration should have instead picked India. According to Yongjian, the selection of Indonesia arbitrarily broke a long chain of China reviews that used India as surrogate country, and was effectively a change in methodology without the required notice and comment period. The court disagreed, finding the selection to be consistent with the methodology of prior reviews, and finding the use of Indonesia as surrogate country to be reasonable based on record evidence.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower court criminal conviction of two importers for failure to redeliver shipments of dairy products to CBP that the Food and Drug Administration had found to be adulterated. Although the defendants admitted to distributing and selling the merchandise after CBP had demanded redelivery, and with knowledge that the dairy products were contaminated with bacteria, the 11th circuit found that they were only liable for civil penalties, and not subject to prison sentences. According to the court, 19 CFR 141.113(c) on redelivery of FDA-regulated merchandise is clear in providing only for liquidated damages capped at three times the value of the merchandise.

The Court of International Trade sustained the results of a remand of the 2006-07 antidumping duty administrative review of chlorinated isocyanurates from China (A-570-898). CIT had remanded in November 2011, in response to a challenge by two domestic producers to the data used by the International Trade Administration for calculation of surrogate values. The ITA had been directed to reconsider values used for urea, steam coal and ammonia gas by-products. After reconsideration, the ITA made no changes, and the court accepted the agency’s reasoning over the arguments of the domestic producers.