Korean producer Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. challenged the International Trade Administration’s model match, which made price comparisons between painted and laminated products, and its use of zeroing (disregarding non-dumped sales transactions in the margin calculation) in the August 2005 - July 2006 AD duty administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. Following two remands, the Court of International Trade affirmed the ITA’s revised model match, in which it ultimately conceded it would not treat painted, non-laminated corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products as identical to more costly laminated products in U.S.-to-home-market price comparisons.
Chinese producer Peer Bearing Company - Changshan and The Timken Company, a domestic producer, challenged the final determination of the International Trade Administration in the June 2007 - May 2008 AD duty administrative review of ball bearings and parts thereof from China. Peer contested the ITA’s method of calculating duty assessments, its decision that bearings further manufactured in Thailand were still Chinese, and its valuation of steel bar inputs; Timken objected to a too-low value for steel wire rod inputs.
The Court of International Trade has ruled in Horizon Lines, LLC v. U.S. that Horizon Line’s replacement of new anti-fouling coatings on a vessel's underwater hull that was performed overseas is not a dutiable foreign repair. The CIT found that such work is non-dutiable because the hull's paint system prior to replacement was in good order and was performed solely in order to comply with international anti-fouling rules. Therefore, the CIT stated that any repair was incidental to Horizon's intent for compliance.
When the International Trade Commission surveyed domestic producers as part of its 1998-1999 AD duty injury determination investigations of preserved mushroom imports, Giorgio Foods, Inc. took no position on imports from China, Chile, and Indonesia, and opposed the petition with respect to India. Giorgio nevertheless challenged its exclusion from the list of “affected domestic producers” eligible to share in disbursements under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA, commonly referred to as the Byrd Amendment). Now the Court of International Trade has denied Giorgio’s requests to amend its claim against the ineligibility rulings by the ITC and by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and to add “due process“ and money damages claims. The court noted that the purpose of the statute is quite clear, “to bar opposers of AD investigations from securing payments” under the CDSOA. The CIT did permit Giorgio to withdraw two previous claims based on First Amendment and Equal Protection arguments, to “streamline” the case. (Slip Op. 11-139, dated 11/17/11)
The Justice Department has announced that Sea Star Line LLC, based in Florida, has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $14.2 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices in the coastal water freight transportation industry. Additionally, Frank Peake, the former president of Sea Star Line was indicted for his role in the same conspiracy.
Domestic manufacturer Kinetic Industries, Inc. challenged the refusal by the International Trade Administration to initiate an AD administrative review of saccharine from China for the July 2009 - June 2010 period, arguing that Taiwanese companies were repackaging Chinese-produced saccharin and re-exporting it to the U.S. to evade AD duties. The Court of International Trade concurred with the ITA’s reasoning that since repackaging does not amount to “assembly,” the Taiwanese exporters were not “interested parties “ under the relevant statute (19 USC 1677j). The court also agreed with the ITA that the alleged transshipments would be better addressed in an anti-circumvention inquiry, or in a Customs and Border Protection investigation that could result in monetary penalties for transshipments arising from negligence or fraud. (Slip Op. 11-138, dated 11/17/11)
The Justice Department has announced that on November 15, 2011, Belal Amin Alsaidi pleaded guilty to trafficking in shoes and apparel that he knew were counterfeit at his two stores in Petersburg, Virginia from May 2007 until March 2009. According to court documents, Alsaidi received more than 1,400 packages of counterfeit merchandise at his stores from New York. The merchandise bore fake trademarks for companies such as Nike, NFL, Lacoste, True Religion and Coogi. At sentencing, which is scheduled for February 23, 2012, Alsaidi faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $2 million fine.
According to sources from the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the organization plans to appeal a September 26, 2011 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While the Court overturned the Port of Los Angeles' ban on owner-operators as part of its concession agreement in favor of ATA, the Court decided to uphold certain other Port requirements relating to (i) truck parking, (ii) financial capability, (iii) maintenance, and (iv) placards.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has announced that Saidou Dia, of St. Louis, Missouri, was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison and a lifetime of supervised release on charges relating to a large-scale bootleg movie business, and failing to register as a sex offender1. He pleaded guilty in August 2011.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that the two year time limit in 19 USC 1515(a) for CBP to decide protests is not mandatory. Hitachi Home Electronics (America) Inc. had argued that all protests not allowed or denied within the two-year statutory time period should automatically be “deemed allowed by operation of law.” The CAFC said that the time limit is merely directory, and 28 USC 1581(i)1 jurisdiction for this case is not triggered if CBP fails to act in the two year period.