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").

BIS Denies Export Privileges of Man Involved in Planning Illicit Electronics Shipments to Iran
June 21, 2017 |Penalties and Courts

The Bureau of Industry and Security is denying the export privileges of a man convicted of "willfully conspiring to export, reexport, sell and supply from the United States electronic components to customers located in Iran, without the required U.S. Government authorization," BIS said (here). U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 20, 2016, convicted Ali Reza Parsa of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, BIS said. The agency is suspending Parsa's export privileges until May 20, 2026.

CAFC Finds Un-Notified Chinese Exporter Can't Claim AD Review, High Rate Were Invalid
June 1, 2017 |Penalties and Courts

A Commerce Department antidumping duty review of a Chinese exporter of steel nails was valid, even though notification requirements were not met and the Chinese exporter did not defend itself in the review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 30 (here). Affirming a Court of International Trade ruling issued in April 2016 (see 1604250033), the appeals court found Suntec was effectively notified of the administrative review when the initiation notice was published in the Federal Register, even though the domestic manufacturer that requested the review did not serve the request directly on Suntec, as required by regulation.

Topics:Customs duty
CIT Denies Surety's Challenge to Length of NAFTA Verification
May 31, 2017 |Penalties and Courts

The Court of International Trade on May 30 (here) denied a surety’s challenge to CBP’s extensions of liquidation on several entries while the agency conducted NAFTA verifications. International Fidelity Insurance contended that CBP’s investigation, which eventually found the textile entries did not qualify for NAFTA treatment, was rife with unreasonable delays, and that the entries it bonded should have been deemed liquidated because the extensions of liquidation were not justified. But finding CBP’s investigation “continual, if not consistent,” the court found CBP’s decisions to extend were based on well-founded agency policy.

Topics:Court of International Trade
Interest on Past Due Duties Subject to Protest, CAFC Affirms
May 30, 2017 |Penalties and Courts

Interest on past due customs duties and fees are subject to the same protest and judicial challenge procedures as those for any other duty or fee, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 26 (here). Affirming a Court of International Trade ruling from August 2015 (see 1508200013), the appeals court held that, because interest on past due bills is protestable, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) waived its right to challenge CBP’s interest calculations because it did not file a court challenge on a denied protest of the interest by the applicable deadline.

Topics:Court of International Trade
Supreme Court Finds Foreign Sales Exhaust Patents on Gray Market Imports
May 30, 2017 |Penalties and Courts

Any sale in the U.S. or abroad exhausts a patent holder’s rights to sue gray market importers for infringement, the Supreme Court said in a decision issued May 30 (here). Overturning a Federal Circuit decision from 2016, the Supreme Court held Lexmark cannot sue a remanufacturer of its printer cartridges, Impression Products, for importing and selling refilled cartridges that had already been sold in foreign countries and in the U.S. under a no resale agreement.