The U.S. District Court for Northern California extended the time period for the Food and Drug Administration and the Center for Food Safety to come up with a timeline for implementation of Food Safety Modernization Act regulations. The District Court had ordered FDA to adhere to a schedule for FSMA rulemaking in April, due to missed deadlines for rules that the court had deemed illegal (see 13042402). But concerned that its own dates would be arbitrary, the court instead ordered the Center for Food Safety and the Food and Drug Administration to agree to a timeline by May 20. The new deadline for the rulemaking schedule is June 10.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a lower court decision affirming the non-individual separate rate calculated for Yangzhou Bestpak in the antidumping duty investigation on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China (A-570-952). The Commerce Department had assigned Yangzhou Bestpak an AD rate based on a simple average of the two mandatory respondents’ AD rates. One of the mandatory respondents had a de minimis AD rate, while the other had been assigned an adverse facts available rate because of noncooperation, which meant Yangzhou Bestpak’s simple average AD rate was half of the AFA rate, despite the company’s cooperation.

The D.C. federal District Court dismissed PRP Trading’s attempt to gain release of several shipments of aluminum extrusions it contends were mistakenly seized for lack of country of origin markings. The Court of International Trade had transferred the case to the District Courts in October, after finding it had no jurisdiction because the shipments had been seized before PRP Trading filed suit (see 12100331). But according to the D.C. court, PRP Trading requested the case be transferred to the wrong district -- it should have brought suit in Puerto Rico -- and in any case the company didn’t complete all required actions at the administrative level before CBP.

The Court of International Trade’s decision on CBP enforcement of patent exclusion orders in Corning Gilbert v. U.S. will stand, after the U.S. government withdrew its appeal May 15. In February, CIT ordered CBP to admit coaxial cable connectors imported by Corning Gilbert, but found by CBP to be subject to an International Trade Commission general exclusion order for patent infringement, and excluded from entry into the U.S. (see 13020405). Corning Gilbert was not a party to the ITC Section 337 investigation that resulted in the general exclusion order, and so the ITC never specifically found that the company’s connectors infringed the relevant patents. Because there was no ITC finding that was directly applicable, and CBP should have undertaken a thorough analysis of whether Corning Gilbert’s connector in particular violated the patents covered by the general exclusion order, the court said. The government's motion did not include detail on why it was withdrawing its appeal. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the government motion May 16.

“Safe berth warranties” are an express assurance of a ship’s safety when coming into a port, and not just a promise that the guarantor will perform due diligence, said the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as it overturned a lower court’s judgment against the owner of an oil tanker associated with a spill. Frescati Shipping Company is attempting to recoup some of the $180 million it paid out in cleanup costs and ship damages after a 2004 oil spill in the Delaware River near Paulsboro, N.J. The appeals court also found that Frescati could benefit from the safe berth warranty, even though it was not a party to the original agreement. Furthermore, the “named port exception” to safe berth warranties does not apply to hazards that are unknown to parties and that are not reasonably foreseeable, the 3rd Circuit said, and so does not apply in this case where a submerged ship anchor caused the spill.

The antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from Japan and the United Kingdom are set to be reinstated, after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided May 16 to reverse several lower court rulings. The Court of International Trade remands had resulted in the International Trade Commission changing its affirmative injury determinations from its sunset reviews to negative ones. That led to revocation of the ball bearings orders for Japan and the U.K. in July 2011. But the appeals court said that, contrary to the lower court’s findings, the ITC injury findings were supported by record evidence, and should have stood.

JTEKT North America, successor to Koyo Corporation, appealed the Court of International Trade’s March 13 denial of Koyo’s bid for funds under the Continued Dumping and Subsidization Offset Act (also known as the Byrd Amendment). Koyo, a domestic tapered roller bearing manufacturer, had said it should receive duties collected pursuant to various antidumping duty orders on tapered roller bearings. CIT said Koyo’s constitutional arguments were identical to those raised in Pat Huval v. U.S. (see 12031204). Just as in Pat Huval, the court dismissed all of Koyo’s claims as foreclosed by precedent (see 13031429).

A Chinese company appealed a decision by the Court of International Trade affirming the Commerce Department’s ability to impose countervailing duties on non-market economy countries, as well as its affirmative subsidy determinations for inputs at less-than-adequate remuneration (LTAR) from state-owned enterprises (see 13031404). The court had denied Guangdong Wireking’s broad constitutional challenge to CV duties on NMEs based on recent precedent approving the practice. Wireking’s other challenge on whether state-owned enterprises are “government authorities” that can bestow subsidies failed on the misunderstanding that “government authorities" have to exercise state authority. Instead, they just have to be owned by the government, CIT said.

Chemsol and MC International appealed the March 20 dismissal by the Court of International Trade of its challenge to CBP’s extensions of the liquidation deadline for its entries in the context of an investigation of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion (see 13032104). Plaintiffs Chemsol and MC International argued that the investigation was inactive because CBP and ICE had not requested new information from the companies, and so CBP was unjustified in its extensions. But the court said CBP was within its rights to extend the liquidation deadlines, because the investigation was active in that CBP was seeking information elsewhere. CBP isn’t restricted to seeking more information only from the investigated companies, it said.

The Court of International Trade vacated its August judgment against Nan Ya Plastics’ claim for funds under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA, also known as the Byrd Amendment) (see 12071601). The court will now allow Nan Ya to file an amended complaint, in light of the Appeals Court’s July 2012 ruling in PS Chez Sidney v. International Trade Commission (see 12071604).