The Court of International Trade denied Samsung’s challenge to CBP’s Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of parts used in its plasma screen televisions, saying that CBP correctly found the parts at issue to be flat panel screen assemblies. CBP’s classification had resulted in denial of NAFTA duty free treatment for the televisions, because no tariff-shift rule of origin applies to the flat panel screen assemblies, which were manufactured in Korea. The issues before CBP were similar to those of the protests underlying the Hitachi protest time limit case, currently awaiting a decision on whether the Supreme Court will hear the case. CBP also went over its statutory two-year time limit for Samsung’s protests, but Samsung filed for accelerated disposition rather than challenge CBP on the time limit, and had its protest deemed denied.

The federal district court for the District of Colombia has no jurisdiction to hear a challenge of a lawyer’s participation in an International Trade Administration antidumping review, said law firm Foley and Lardner in response to a request by GEO specialty chemicals to prevent an attorney at the firm from representing a Chinese company in a new shipper review of Glycine from China (A-570-836). GEO filed its complaint in district court Nov. 8, requesting an injunction against the representation of a Chinese company by Gregory Husisian, a lawyer at the firm, because he formerly represented GEO in the proceeding while at a different firm. The company said Husisian’s actions violate D.C. law. But Foley and Lardner said the complaint should have instead been filed at the Court of International Trade, consistent with other cases challenging representation of attorneys before the ITA, and asked the court to dismiss with prejudice.

The Department of Justice charged an Iranian man and his Iran-based company with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., smuggling, and a violation of the Arms Export Control Act, in connection with the unlawful export of 55 military antennas from the U.S. to Singapore and Hong Kong, it said. Amin Ravan, a citizen of Iran, was arrested by authorities in Malaysia in connection with a U.S. provisional arrest warrant. The U.S. is seeking to extradite him from Malaysia to stand trial in the District of Columbia. If convicted, Ravan faces 20 years in prison for the AECA violation 10 years for smuggling, and five years for the conspiracy charge.

A Maryland man pleaded guilty Oct. 15 to obstruction of agency proceedings, in connection with giving false statements during his background investigation for a security clearance, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Gurpreet Singh Kohli, of Potomac, Md., was required to obtain a security clearance for a position with a defense electronics and weapons manufacturer based in Maryland. But during the investigation, Kohli minimized his relationships with Indian officials that resulted from his concurrent operation of NAVTEC, which was registered with the Department of State to act as a broker in the sale and transfer of U.S. defense electronics and related components, ICE said. The majority of NAVTEC’s customers were Indian government, military, and defense-related agencies. Kohli faces a maximum of five years in prison.

The Court of International Trade dismissed a challenge to the results of a sunset review that resulted in the 2010 revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel sheet and strip from Italy, Germany, and Mexico due to lack of injury to U.S. industry in the foreseeable future. The International Trade Commission had premised its determination on ThuyssenKrupp’s construction of a stainless steel plate production facility in the U.S., as well as its shift to a “local supply strategy” where the company planned to serve the North American market with stainless steel plate sourced from the U.S. and Mexico. ThuysssenKrupp also vested its vice president of the U.S. division with veto power over imports from other affiliates, including those from Italy, Germany and Mexico, the ITC said. As such, the company had effectively become a U.S. industry. In dismissing the case, CIT said the domestic plaintiffs did not prove that the ITC’s conclusions on cumulation, volume effects, and price effects were unreasonable interpretations of the evidence.

The Court of International Trade affirmed the results of a remand of the final determination in the countervailing duty investigation of multilayered wood flooring from China (C-570-971). In August, CIT remanded the International Trade Administration’s finding that two respondents were uncooperative because they didn’t respond to the quantity & value questionnaire in the investigation. Later in the proceeding, and at the ITA’s request, the two companies placed evidence on the record that the ITA used the wrong names for the firms. The ITA said the submissions were untimely, and assigned the companies an adverse facts available rate. In its remand, CIT ordered the ITA to consider the evidence. The plaintiffs supported the remand redetermination, so CIT affirmed.

The International Trade Administration’s new methodology for determining surrogate wage rates in antidumping proceedings for non-market economies (NME) is reasonable, but the ITA must choose the surrogate country based on evidence, and not simply because it is used to value other inputs, said the Court of International Trade as it remanded in part the final results of the 09-10 AD review of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam (A-552-802). CIT also affirmed the ITA’s use of zeroing in the administrative review.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission’s finding of no Section 337 violations by SMC’s imports or sales of connecting devices for use with modular compressed air conditioning units (337-TA-587). Norgren, which filed the original patent complaint, contested the ITC’s finding that its patent was obvious and therefore invalid, noting that ITC had found the patent nonobvious prior to a 2009 CAFC reversal of a different issue associated with the case. CAFC said it vacated the ITC’s obviousness determination in the first remand, allowing the ITC to revisit its determination in light of the new claim construction that resulted from the remand. The ITC also considered new evidence when making its determination, CAFC said. Judge Moore issued a dissenting opinion.

Yama Ribbons and Bows appealed a Sept. 14 Court of International Trade decision affirming a 1.56 percent countervailing duty rate in the investigation of certain narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China (C-570-953). Yama argued that it was affiliated with a Hong Kong company, and so the International Trade Administration should have used sales from the company based in Hong Kong to the U.S. to calculate its CV duty rate. Instead, the ITA used sales from Yama, which is based in China, to the Hong Kong company. When the ITA used sales from China to Hong Kong in its preliminary determination, Yama was assigned a de minimis CV duty rate. But the evidence showing Yama was affiliated with the Hong Kong company were only placed on the record of the companion antidumping duty investigation. CIT said the two investigations were separate proceedings, and Yama should have placed the evidence on the record of the CV investigation. The ITA would have violated its own regulations by placing the information on the CV investigation record on its own initiative, it said.

Ninestar Technology filed a petition for Supreme Court hearing on whether it must pay more than $11 million in penalties for violating an exclusion order and cease and desist orders issued in an International Trade Commission patent investigation of ink cartridge imports. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the penalties in February. Ninestar had argued that sale in any country satisfies the “first sale rule,” so its sale of the ink cartridges in China exhaust any U.S. patent claims in a Section 337 proceeding. The company also argued that administrative bodies, such as the ITC, cannot issue punitive penalties for violation of an administrative order. Such a large penalty could only be ordered by an Article III court after a fair trial, it said.