U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has announced that three people have been indicted for misclassifying Chinese honey as rice fructose in order to avoid more than $1 million in antidumping duties. The three defendants, Chin Shih Chou (Taiwan), Qiao Chu (China), and Wei-Tang Lo (California) represented a number of honey importation companies in executing the scheme. They mislabeled shipping containers filled with the Chinese honey to avoid a $2.63 per kilo antidumping duty. Once the containers of honey passed through customs, they were forwarded to a warehouse, washed of all markings, and relabeled as amber honey, and sold to domestic producers.

The Court of International Trade once again remanded to the International Trade Administration the agency‘s “separate rate” determination for Chinese producer/exporter Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., in the August 2006 - July 2007 AD administrative review of floor-standing metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from China.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida has announced that Elias Garcia and Maria Plancarte have pled guilty to charges of conspiring to violate the federal Lacey Act by smuggling jaguar skins from Mexico and trafficking in them in the U.S. The jaguar is listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Under cover of a plant seed company Garcia and Plancarte jointly operated, they sold two jaguar pelts to undercover Fish and Wildlife Service agents and planned a future sale of up to 10 jaguar pelts to be smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. Their sentencing is scheduled for March 2012, where each defendant faces a five year prison term, a criminal fine of up to $250,000, and a period of up to three years of supervised release.

The Court of International Trade has ruled in favor of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Ford Motor Company v. U.S., denying Ford's claims for a refund of duties under NAFTA after untimely filing its NAFTA certificates of origin beyond the statutory one year limit. The CIT agreed with CBP that a valid refund claim exists only when the importer has filed all required documentation. As such, all components of a claim, including copies of the certificates of origin, must be filed within one year of importation.

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade denied U.S. Customs and Border Protection's motion to dismiss challenges to its classification of "networking equipment" in protests filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. Customs argued that Cisco's protests were invalid because the use of the phrase "networking equipment" is too vague. However, the CIT stated that technical precision is not required in protests and that Customs could have sought more information from Cisco to evaluate its protests.

Korean producer Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. challenged the International Trade Administration’s model match, which made price comparisons between painted and laminated products, and its use of zeroing (disregarding non-dumped sales transactions in the margin calculation) in the August 2005 - July 2006 AD duty administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. Following two remands, the Court of International Trade affirmed the ITA’s revised model match, in which it ultimately conceded it would not treat painted, non-laminated corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products as identical to more costly laminated products in U.S.-to-home-market price comparisons.

Chinese producer Peer Bearing Company - Changshan and The Timken Company, a domestic producer, challenged the final determination of the International Trade Administration in the June 2007 - May 2008 AD duty administrative review of ball bearings and parts thereof from China. Peer contested the ITA’s method of calculating duty assessments, its decision that bearings further manufactured in Thailand were still Chinese, and its valuation of steel bar inputs; Timken objected to a too-low value for steel wire rod inputs.

The Court of International Trade has ruled in Horizon Lines, LLC v. U.S. that Horizon Line’s replacement of new anti-fouling coatings on a vessel's underwater hull that was performed overseas is not a dutiable foreign repair. The CIT found that such work is non-dutiable because the hull's paint system prior to replacement was in good order and was performed solely in order to comply with international anti-fouling rules. Therefore, the CIT stated that any repair was incidental to Horizon's intent for compliance.

When the International Trade Commission surveyed domestic producers as part of its 1998-1999 AD duty injury determination investigations of preserved mushroom imports, Giorgio Foods, Inc. took no position on imports from China, Chile, and Indonesia, and opposed the petition with respect to India. Giorgio nevertheless challenged its exclusion from the list of “affected domestic producers” eligible to share in disbursements under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA, commonly referred to as the Byrd Amendment). Now the Court of International Trade has denied Giorgio’s requests to amend its claim against the ineligibility rulings by the ITC and by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and to add “due process“ and money damages claims. The court noted that the purpose of the statute is quite clear, “to bar opposers of AD investigations from securing payments” under the CDSOA. The CIT did permit Giorgio to withdraw two previous claims based on First Amendment and Equal Protection arguments, to “streamline” the case. (Slip Op. 11-139, dated 11/17/11)

The Justice Department has announced that Sea Star Line LLC, based in Florida, has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $14.2 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices in the coastal water freight transportation industry. Additionally, Frank Peake, the former president of Sea Star Line was indicted for his role in the same conspiracy.