The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 29 - June 1:

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.

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.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 22-28:

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.

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.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 15-21:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 8-14:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 1-7:

A Singaporean man was sentenced to 40 months in prison for his role in a conspiracy involving radio frequency modules to be illegally exported to Iran, the Department of Justice said in a news release (here). The Bureau of Industry and Security posted the announcement on May 9. Singapore citizen Steven Lim pleaded guilty on Dec. 15, 2016, to conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by dishonest means, DOJ said. The U.S. will deport Lim when he completes his sentence. Lim admitted that between August 2007 and February 2008, he and others caused 6,000 modules to be bought and exported through Singapore, and later to Iran, in five shipments, knowing the export of the goods to Iran was a violation of U.S. law, DOJ said. For every transaction, Lim and others made misrepresentations and false statements to the involved Minnesota-based firm that Singapore was the final destination of the goods. Lim and others also caused false documents to be filed with the U.S. government, DOJ said. After the modules arrived in Singapore, they were stored at a freight forwarding company until they were aggregated with other electronic components and shipped to Iran, DOJ said.