An importer will drop its court challenge of an Emergency Action Notification blocking its shipment of corn at the Port of San Francisco, after reaching an agreement with the government to settle the case. In return for voluntarily dismissing its lawsuit, Sunrise will get an in-person meeting with representatives of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in Washington, according to the settlement agreement. The shipment of corn, initially released based on an entry documentation that said it was organic and from Turkey but later found to be of Russian, Moldovan and Kazakhstani origin, never left its ship, and departed the Port of San Francisco the day after Sunrise’s initial bid for a court order failed in April (see 1804240065). Sunrise maintains that the shipment complied with all APHIS requirements. Sunrise agreed to dismissal with prejudice, which means it can’t bring the same legal claim again.

An importer will pay more than $80,000 in penalties for misdeclaring the country of origin on its entries of apparel products, the Court of International Trade said in a May 24 decision. The court ordered Active Frontier International to pay the maximum penalty for negligent customs violations under 19 USC 1592, partly because the importer did not exercise a minimum of reasonable care.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 21-27:

The Court of International trade on May 25 issued an injunction barring CBP from imposing harsh bonding requirements on an importer accused of trademark infringement, finding CBP Norfolk far exceeded the agency’s own guidelines for bond amounts. The single transaction bond required by CBP Norfolk on U.S. Auto Parts would have put the company out of business, and indiscriminately applied to merchandise that was not alleged to be counterfeit while ignoring guidance in CBP’s bond directive, the court said.

After years of litigation, a "clarification" to the scope of antidumping duties on petroleum wax candles from China once deemed "overbroad" by the Court of International Trade will apparently stand. A candle importer, Trade Associates Group, agreed to dismiss its lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it can't bring the same challenge again. The National Candle Association, which represents U.S. candle manufacturers, claimed victory in a news release.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 14-20:

The Court of International Trade on May 15 ordered the Commerce Department to reconsider a 2017 scope ruling that found fittings used with electrical conduit are subject to antidumping duties on malleable iron pipe fittings from China. The court said Commerce failed to consider whether the term “pipe” in the scope of the AD duty order includes products like electrical conduit that are not designed to withstand pressure.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 7-13:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 30 - May 6:

The Court of International Trade on May 3 dismissed a steel importer’s challenge of Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel products. Severstal Export Miami, its affiliate Severstal Export GmbH, and the U.S. government had agreed to the dismissal, after CIT in April denied Severstal’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop imposition of the 25 percent tariff on Severstal’s imports. Severstal agreed to dismissal with prejudice, so it won’t be able to bring its claims again at CIT. The court had told Severstal that the case would be unlikely to succeed, noting that Section 232 gives the president the discretion to impose Section 232 tariffs even for economic threats to national security (see 1804060028).