The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 16-22:

A U.S. Department of Agriculture political appointee who has been nominated to the Court of International Trade (see 1911150010) is drawing fire from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which says he has supported voter suppression policies. Although the CIT does not address civil rights issues, the organizations that sent a letter opposing Stephen Vaden's nomination note that CIT judges can be detailed to circuit or district courts. But even beside their concerns about his political history, they argued that since the 37-year-old has only practiced law for 10 years, and has never handled a trial, he's not qualified to be a federal judge. “Mr. Vaden acknowledged that he has never litigated any matters in the CIT, he is not admitted to practice before the CIT, he has never litigated any matters involving international trade,” they said.

A Miami-based customs broker was sentenced to 72 months in prison for his part in a scheme to obtain steep discounts by telling medical device manufacturers they were shipping devices to Afghanistan as aid and military supplies, then diverting the devices to U.S. customers, the Justice Department said in a Dec. 16 press release. Luis Soto had been convicted by a jury after evidence was presented that he was a knowing participant in the scheme (see 1909050023). He will also forfeit $100,000 in proceeds, DOJ said. Byramji Javat, the purported ringleader, had already pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 120 months in prison.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 2-8:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 25 - Dec. 1:

A New Jersey U.S. District Court jury recently issued a not guilty verdict in a lawsuit alleging a glycine supplier intentionally misrepresented that glycine imported by Pharm-Rx was not of Chinese origin, when it was and ended up costing Pharm-Rx more than $700,000 in antidumping duties (see 1904020043). Following a six-day trial, the jury found that Pharm-Rx did not prove that BMP made any misrepresentation of country of origin that was likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the goods, nor did it make a material misstatement or omission of fact, or act in bad faith in performance of its contract with the importer, according to court documents. While the jury did find that BMP misrepresented or intentionally suppressed, concealed or omitted a “significant fact,” it found that Pharm-Rx’s reliance on that misrepresentation or intentional concealment was not justified. The court entered judgment in favor of BMP on Nov. 22.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 18-24:

Ford looks set to appeal its case on the tariff engineering of cargo vans to the Supreme Court, according to a recent filing. The automaker filed a request on Nov. 20 to delay its formal petition for a hearing until February. The Supreme Court granted the request and formally docketed the case. Ford is appealing a Federal Circuit decision issued in June that found its vans imported with passenger seats are classifiable as cargo vans because the vans were designed so that the seats could be removed post-importation (see 1906070061). That decision overturned an earlier ruling from the Court of International Trade, which had found the vans classifiable in their condition at the time of importation as passenger vans (see 1708170032). The Federal Circuit denied Ford’s request for a rehearing in October (see 1910280033)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled against an importer seeking to file a late request for a Generalized System of Preferences benefits program refund after it missed the deadline due to a miscommunication with its broker. Affirming a decision issued by the Court of International Trade in September 2018 (see 1809240017), the Federal Circuit found valid CBP’s denial of Industrial Chemical’s protest to request refunds of duties paid during the 2013-15 GSP lapse. The Dec. 28, 2015, deadline for requesting the refunds was set by law, and CBP had no discretion to allow refund requests beyond that date, CAFC said. And while the protest was filed within 180 days of CBP’s denial of GSP refunds, it had to be filed within 180 days of the relevant entry’s liquidation, and it was not, the Federal Circuit said.

U.S. government searches of international travelers’ phones and laptops without warrant or probable cause violate the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. District Court in Boston ruled on Nov. 12. Alasaad v. McAleenan involved controversial airport searches by CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Massachusetts filed the lawsuit. “This is a great day for travelers who now can cross the international border without fear that the government will, in the absence of any suspicion, ransack the extraordinarily sensitive information we all carry in our electronic devices,” EFF senior staff attorney Sophia Cope said. The Department of Homeland Security didn't comment.