International Trade Today is a service of Warren Communications News.
Subscriber Login
Penalties and Courts
to
Refine Category Search
Clear Terms

Search Primer

Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match together (e.g. "forced labor").

Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons to find either word (e.g. AD/CVD CBP).

Acronyms: Use all capital letters (e.g., ACE).

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., tariffs +Canada).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., FDA -alert).

Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "metal" instead of "metals" or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

CIT Rules Commerce Did Not Aid Small Exporters Enough in Antidumping Review
February 3, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Penalties and Courts

The Commerce Department did not provide enough assistance to three exporters of Indian shrimp as required by law during antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 3 decision. During a review of frozen warmwater shrimp from India, Indian exporters Calcutta Seafoods, Bay Seafood and Elque & Co. were not granted sufficient help after requesting it from the Commerce, CIT said, ordering Commerce to reconsider the antidumping rates it placed on the three companies' shrimp imports, with specific instructions to reopen the administrative review to further help the importers provide adequate information for the review.

Topics:Customs duty, Court of International Trade
Section 301 Suit Names USTR, Not Lighthizer, as Defendant
January 26, 2021 |Penalties and Courts

Robert Lighthizer’s departure as U.S. trade representative with the passing of the Trump administration spawned the first Section 301 complaint among many inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade to bring suit against his former agency instead of Lighthizer himself. Wacom Technology, an importer of digital pen displays for creative artists, alleged like thousands of others that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its authority when it imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, and seeks to have the tariffs vacated and the money refunded. “Now-former Ambassador Lighthizer made numerous decisions regarding List 3 and List 4,” Wacom said Jan. 25. “At the time of filing this complaint,” Lighthizer “no longer held the position” of USTR, and hasn’t been replaced, it said. “The actions at issue in this complaint were and are being performed in the official capacity” of Lighthizer’s former agency, it said.

CIT Updates Ruling on Strike Pin Anchors to Mirror Appeal Decision
January 22, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Penalties and Courts

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 21 ruled that Midwest Fastener's strike pin anchors are not nails, and are not subject to antidumping duties on steel nails from China. After a series of decisions wherein CIT told Commerce to reconsider its scope ruling that the strike pin anchors are subject to AD duties, the trade court ruled that an Aug. 28 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in a related case answers the question of scope coverage definitively, holding masonry anchors from OMG aren't nails and can't be covered by an identical AD duty order on steel nails from Vietnam (see 2008280039). In light of that definitive decision, CIT departed from its earlier decisions that held the scope's coverage of masonry anchors ambiguous, and directed Commerce to perform a more thorough analysis. “Commerce should now make its determination in accordance with the Court of Appeals’” holding, CIT said, giving the agency 60 days to submit its remand redetermination.

Topics:Customs duty, Court of International Trade
Texas Judge Dismisses Malpractice Case Against Steptoe & Johnson
January 22, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Penalties and Courts

A Texas federal court on Jan. 21 dismissed a $6 million legal malpractice suit brought against two trade lawyers at Steptoe & Johnson, holding it lacked jurisdiction over the case. Thomas Trendl and Gregory McCue had been accused by Allied Fitting of failing to advise it to file protests to maintain its eligibility for refunds on its steel imports (see 2010140049), but Southern Texas U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Hoyt ruled that the suit covered activities in Washington, not Texas.

Roofing Materials Importer Settles Allegations It Knowingly Skirted Country of Origin Markings
January 21, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Penalties and Courts

Florida-based construction materials manufacturer Gardner-Gibson agreed to pay a $160,933 settlement to resolve allegations of customs laws violations, the Department of Justice said Jan. 20. Gardner-Gibson, which makes and imports products related to residential and commercial construction, allegedly imported a roofing underlayment product made in China without the proper country of origin labels. An individual brought the charges against Gardner-Gibson under the False Claims Act and said the company knowingly failed to apply country of origin markings on its imports in an effort to evade customs duties. The relator will receive 20% of the $160,933 payment, and Gardner-Gibson will also pay the relator's attorney fees of more than $40,000, DOJ said. “It is important that all U.S. businesses have a fair playing field,” said U.S. Attorney Brian Moran. “This case began with a relator alerting the government to the unlawful conduct, helping the government police the import marketplace to ensure fairness.” The settlement resolves allegations and there was no determination of liability, DOJ said.