Foreigners without close ties to U.S. companies cannot be held in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for acts that took place outside the U.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit said in an Aug. 24 decision. The government had alleged Lawrence Hoskins, a U.K. national and senior vice president of France-based Alstom Resources Management, was guilty of FCPA violations by way of conspiring with employees of a U.S.-based subsidiary to bribe Indonesian officials in an effort to secure a power generation contract. But conspiring with U.S. officials was not good enough, the appeals court ruled, affirming a district court decision. Unlike U.S. nationals, who are explicitly liable for the FCPA for conduct abroad, “the FCPA clearly dictates that foreign nationals may only violate the statute outside the United States if they are agents, employees, officers, directors, or shareholders of an American issuer or domestic concern,” the court said. “To hold Hoskins liable, the government must demonstrate that he falls within one of those categories or acted illegally on American soil.” The government can still pursue FCPA charges if it proves Hoskins was acting as an agent of a U.S. company, the appeals court said. Hoskins also faces money laundering charges filed in 2013 with the FCPA charges, according to a post on The FCPA Blog.

A federal judge sentenced a customs broker to 10 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, over a federal excise tax evasion scheme, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida said in a news release. Alberto Rodriguez, of Briarwood, New York, pleaded guilty in June to charges involving false entry summaries to misrepresent tobacco excise taxes due on large quantities of cigars (see 1806110013). Rodriguez also must pay $503,681.15 in restitution to CBP, equal to the estimated amount of tobacco excise taxes he evaded.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 13-19:

President Donald Trump’s recent decision to double Section 232 duties on steel from Turkey further demonstrates the vague and arbitrary nature of the tariffs and their unconstitutional conflict with the principle of separation of powers, the American Institute for Imported Steel and steel importers said in a brief submitted Aug. 16 as part of their ongoing court challenge of the tariffs (see 1806270036). No reason was given for the action -- imports of steel from Turkey are already falling quickly -- and no legal recourse exists for steel importers to challenge the doubling of tariffs, the brief said. “That is because section 232 lacks an ‘intelligible principle’ guiding the President on what he may do, and does not require him to justify the differing treatment of Turkey from that of other large exporters of steel to the United States or even to base the additional 25 percent tariff increase on any facts, findings, or administrative record of any kind,” the brief said. “Singling out imports from Turkey for double tariffs is the latest and perhaps the clearest example that, like the Emperor with no clothes, section 232 is a naked grant of unchecked power to the President that cannot stand if our constitutional system of separation of powers is to be maintained,” it said.

The Department of Justice filed charges against 22 defendants over imports of counterfeit luxury goods from China, DOJ said in a news release. Six indictments and a criminal complaint were unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Aug. 16, it said. "The charges include conspiracy to traffic, and trafficking, in counterfeit goods; conspiracy to smuggle, and smuggling, counterfeit goods into the United States; money laundering conspiracy; immigration fraud and unlawful procurement of naturalization," DOJ said. Four of the defendants served as the importers for shipping containers full of counterfeit goods through the Port of New York/New Jersey, it said. "They fraudulently used the names, addresses and other identifying information of legitimate import companies and falsified the descriptions of the containers’ contents on U.S. customs paperwork associated with the containers of counterfeit goods." The goods, which include Louis Vuitton and Tory Burch handbags, Michael Kors wallets, Hermes belts and Chanel perfume, would have been worth more than $450 million if real, DOJ said.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 6-12:

The ban on fish and shellfish harvested in the Upper Gulf of California in Mexico near an endangered species of porpoise is "effective immediately," the Court of International Trade ruled Aug. 14. The administration had argued that the regulatory process to create a certificate of admissibility, which involves multiple entities within the federal government, could not be done immediately (see 1808080005). "The Court discerns no merit in the Government’s suggestion that the import ban is not effective immediately," CIT said. "The Court reiterates that it is effective immediately."

The Justice Department charged a group of five individuals with running a major counterfeiting operation, including $70 million worth of fake Nike shoes, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York said in a news release. Starting in 2016, Miyuki Suen, Jian Min Huang, Songhua Qu, Kin Lui Chen and Fangrang Qu are alleged to have imported "at least 42 shipping containers holding an estimated more than 380,000 pairs of sneakers from China," DOJ said. "These sneakers were manufactured to resemble Nike Air Jordans. Once these shoes arrived, the defendants added trademarked logos to the shoes, rendering them counterfeit. The defendants then stored the counterfeit Nike Air Jordans in multiple storage units and warehouses in New York City and elsewhere." The charges stemmed from information provided to ICE Homeland Security Investigations from a private investigative firm hired by Nike, the complaint said.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 30 - Aug. 5:

A California state appeals court recently ruled against Proposition 65 labeling requirements for cancer-causing chemicals in cereals, finding Food and Drug Administration nutrition policy goals outweigh the state’s requirements that cereal manufacturers add warnings to their packaging. Acrylamide, a chemical caused by baking, roasting and frying carbohydrate-rich foods like cereals, is listed by California as posing cancer risks, but Post Foods, General Mills and Kellogg's do not have to add Proposition 65 labeling because the requirements are pre-empted by federal nutrition labeling law, the court said.