On June 28, 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California announced that two commercial fishermen from San Diego plead guilty to illegally fishing for albacore tuna in Mexican waters without the fishing permits required under Mexican law, in violation of the Lacey Act. Nathan Lee, Captain of the ship Two Captains, and Scott Hawkins, Captain of the ship Jody H, admitted that after leaving port in San Diego, they navigated into Mexican waters and caught approximately 800 pounds of albacore tuna. Authorities determined that the vessels were fishing over a hundred miles into Mexican waters near Guadalupe Island when they caught the tuna. Each fisherman was sentenced to a term of three years of probation, and ordered to pay a fine of $500.

In a Justice Department brochure to the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and other documents¹, DOJ explains that liability for FCPA violations includes knowing payments made through intermediaries (which can include customs agents, sales representatives, etc.) to foreign officials. Liability can also attach to pre- and post-acquisition and merger conduct, or so-called "successor liability."

The Supreme Court has reversed the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit's decision to certify a plaintiff class of about 1.5 million current or former female Wal-Mart employees, who alleged that the discretion exercised by their local supervisors over pay and promotion matters discriminated against women. The plaintiffs sought an award of injunctive and declaratory relief and backpay. Among other things, the Supreme Court held that the class was improperly certified as there were no questions of law or fact common to the class to hold together the alleged reasons for the employment decisions.

The Court of International Trade ruled in CBB Group, Inc. v. U.S. that U.S. Customs and Border Protection cannot take action to dispose of imports it found to be piratical copies that infringe a registered copyright while the case is pending, as its Seizure Notice was issued after the importer’s case was brought and the court’s jurisdiction had attached. The importer is challenging CBP’s alleged exclusion of its plush toys from entry and CBP’s deemed denial of its protest of that event.

The Court of International Trade has ruled¹ that U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not err in denying Shell's 1997 protests seeking drawback of Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) and Environmental Tax (ET) payments associated with certain petroleum products that it imported and substitute petroleum derivatives it exported in 1993 and 1994. The CIT agreed with CBP that Shell is not entitled to drawback as its protests were untimely.

The Justice Department announced on June 23, 2011 that a total of seven individuals and five corporate entities based in the U.S., France, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran have been indicted to date for their alleged roles in a conspiracy to illegally export military components for fighter jets and attack helicopters from the U.S. to Iran. The indictments are for alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Iranian Transactions Regulations, etc.

On June 6, 2011, the Justice Department announced that Dimitrios Grifakis, the chief engineer of the Liberian-operated cargo ship M/V Capitola, was sentenced to six months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release, for obstructing a May 2010 Coast Guard inspection into the illegal overboard discharge of oily waste. Grifakis had denied having ordered anyone to pump oily waste overboard and falsified documents to hide these discharges from inspectors in ports visited by the Capitola. Grifakis also obstructed the investigation by concealing certain ship's records and then denying that such records existed.

In the antidumping duty administrative review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India for the period December 2005 through November 2006, the International Trade Administration granted an adjustment to U.S. price to Indian producer Essar Steel Limited for import duties which the company claimed were waived under an Indian Government program to encourage exports. However, U.S. producers United States Steel Corporation and Nucor Corporation argued to the Court of International Trade that Essar had failed to prove that it had qualified for the rebate. Conceding it had made erroneous assumptions, the ITA requested a voluntary remand to reconsider the duty drawback adjustment, and the CIT issued remand instructions accordingly. (Slip Op 11-66, dated 06/14/11)

Thai steel producer Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company Limited contested the Court of International Trade’s decision upholding the International Trade Administration’s actions in reinstating the AD duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand for Sahaviriya after the company had earned partial revocation status. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s decision, finding that the ITA had reasonably interpreted and exercised its revocation and changed circumstances review authority. (Decision 2010-1480, dated 06/17/11)

The following are details of a June 16, 2011 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (here) that overturned a lower court ruling and arguments by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on the classification of certain “CamelBak” back-mounted packs. CAFC agreed with Camelbak that its packs are made up of two different components and are "composite goods" that should be classified by the essential character test, because the two applicable subheadings refer to only part of the subject articles.