A guilty plea related to trafficking of counterfeit goods that was filed as part of a plea agreement that limited appeals of the court's decision can't be appealed, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a July 17 decision. Xiao Xia Zhao pleaded guilty in 2018 in New Jersey district court due to her role in "receiving Importer Security Filing (ISF) numbers from one individual and then providing those ISF numbers to another individual" as part of a counterfeits trafficking scheme. "By providing that information, she assisted in ensuring the contents of the containers identified by the ISF numbers bypassed inspection by customs authorities," the court said. She was sentenced to 18 months in prison and three years of supervised release and then appealed the decision. Following the appeal, Zhao's lawyers requested to withdraw from the case because "the record shows Zhao’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily made." The appeals court found that "[b]ecause we agree with counsel that no nonfrivolous issues exist for appeal, we will grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction of the District Court."

Michael Casey of Virginia, vice president for marketing and operations of Casey’s Seafood, pleaded guilty July 18 to participating in a scheme to sell crab meat from Asia and South America mislabled as a "Product of USA," the Department of Justice said in a July 18 news release. "As part of the plea, Michael Casey admitted to knowing that Casey’s Seafood employees were directed to unpack foreign crab meat from containers and re-package that meat into containers bearing the company name and which were labeled 'Product of USA,' falsely labeling more than 183 tons of crab meat, which was then sold to grocery stores and independent retailers,” DOJ said. Casey's father James, who owns the wholesale seafood processing company, was previously convicted as part of the scheme. "Casey also admitted to aiding and abetting James Casey in selling at least 367,765 pounds of crab meat falsely labeled 'Product of USA,' with a total wholesale value of approximately $4,324,916," DOJ said. The scheme continued from "at least as early as 2010" through mid-June 2015, supplementing any Atlantic blue crab the company processed with foreign crab meat in order to fill customer orders while domestic crab harvests were in decline. Crab meat from "Indonesia, China, Thailand, Vietnam, and Central and South America" was used in the scheme.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 8-14:

CBP released a recently seized ship after a $50 million bond was posted, William McSwain, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, said in a Twitter post. "Progress on our MSC Gayane ship seizure: Today, my Office secured $10 million in cash and a $40 million surety bond from the owner and operator of the vessel in exchange for its temporary release pending a final resolution in this case." The entire ship was seized after more than a billion dollars' worth of cocaine was found aboard the MSC Gayane while at the Port of Philadelphia (see 1907080061).

The Court of International Trade is considering changes to its rules that would update how CBP files required information following a summons, CIT said in a June 27 notice. The amendments to Rule 73.1 "were recommended by the Court's Advisory Committee on Rules," it said. The amendments are meant to make the rules less confusing and improve consistency, the advisory committee said. Comments are due July 29.

A recent Supreme Court case on courts' deference to federal agencies will likely result in tougher legal scrutiny of trade policies made by the Commerce Department, CBP and other agencies that affect trade, said Devin Sikes, a lawyer at Akin Gump. Sikes wrote that the U.S. Court of International Trade and federal appeals courts will be doing deeper reviews of federal agencies' trade regulations that could have ambiguity. "Federal agencies operating in the international trade arena likewise will need to more fully explain their reasons for interpreting a regulation in a particular way," Sikes wrote. "These agencies may no longer assert ambiguity based on the regulation’s terms and expect deference from the courts. Expect an increase in the number of challenges filed contesting an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations."

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 1-7:

The Court of International Trade's ruling that steel rebar stakes fall within the scope of a Commerce Department antidumping duty order was correct, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 2 decision. CIT last year said that the stakes, which are used for holding up grape vines and other plants, are subject to antidumping duties on steel concrete reinforcing bar from China (see 1803130031). Quiedan Company filed the underlying lawsuit with the assertion that the AD order doesn't apply because one side of the stakes is sharpened to a point and the AD order specifies rebar sold in straight lengths. CAFC, like CIT and the Commerce Department, disagreed. "We see no substantive or procedural error in that ruling or in Commerce’s continuation of a suspension of liquidation for Quiedan’s stakes," CAFC said. "Because the Court of International Trade drew the same conclusions, we affirm."

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 24-30:

The 30-day deadline for lawsuits challenging Commerce Department scope rulings is triggered only by physical mailing by post, and not by email, the Court of International Trade said in a July 1 decision that also sustained Commerce’s determination that aluminum pallets made of 6-series alloys are covered by antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China.