The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 6-12:.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 29 - July 5:
Four individuals were arraigned July 1 in U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey, on charges they smuggled tens of thousands of counterfeit Apple and Sony products from China for sale in the U.S., the Justice Department said in a statement (here). Charged in a 31-page indictment (here) with importing and trafficking illegal goods were Andreina Becerra, 30, a Venezuelan national; Roberto Volpe, 33, an Italian national; Jianhua Li, 40, a Chinese national; and Rosario La Marca, 52, an Italian national, DOJ said. They’re also accused of international money laundering to cover their tracks, DOJ said. The indictment estimates the defendants smuggled in more than 40,000 fake Apple and Sony goods between July 2009 and February 2014 that would have fetched more than $15 million in sales had they been the genuine articles. No information was available on whether the four defendants entered pleas, and attorneys for the four didn’t comment.
HDMI Licensing is “wrongfully” demanding more than $905,000 in back royalties and interest from Advanced Digital Broadcast (ADB), a Swiss-based supplier of HD set-top boxes, residential gateway devices and other products to pay-TV operators throughout the world, ADB alleged in a breach of contract complaint filed June 30 in U.S. District Court in San Jose. HDMI Licensing threatened to cancel ADB’s license agreement June 30 and alert CBP to seize ADB shipments as “unauthorized” goods, the complaint said. The complaint doesn’t seek a preliminary injunction, only a “declaration” that HDMI Licensing “is precluded” from notifying CBP that ADB goods “are unauthorized and subject to seizure because they are not.”
Changes to the rules of the Court of International Trade took effect on July 1, according to a notice on the court’s website (here). Changes include amendments to Rules 5, 12, 45, 56, 56.2, 56.3, and Standard Chambers Procedures, as well as technical amendments to several forms and form instructions, said the notice.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 22-28:
The Court of International Trade on June 24 ordered the government to pay the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by International Custom Products in a case involving an improper CBP notice of action that reclassified the importer’s white sauce (here). In one of several related cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in April 2014 granted partial victory to ICP by finding CBP’s notice of action revoked an earlier ruling letter without the required notice and comment period (see 14021001). The notice of action had resulted in a 2,400% duty increase that put ICP out of business.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 15-21:
The Court of International Trade on June 19 overturned CBP’s application of antidumping duties on imports of steel electrical conduit, finding the agency wrongly interpreted the scope of an AD duty order on circular welded pipe from China. The government had disputed the importer’s ability to challenge a CBP decision related to AD duties, arguing that Puerto Rico-based LDA Incorporado should have filed suit against the Commerce Department’s scope instructions instead. But with the fact not in dispute that Commerce’s scope instructions exempted LDA’s product, CIT found the importer’s issue was clearly with CBP’s incorrect interpretation and ordered the entries reliquidated.
The Court of International Trade again ordered an importer to pay over $15,000 in penalties for its failure to pay antidumping duties on petroleum wax candles it imported from China, in a decision issued June 19 (here). CIT had originally ordered NYCC 1959 to pay the penalty for gross negligence under 19 USC 1592, finding the company failed to defend itself against allegations that it continued to declare the merchandise was not subject to antidumping duties that CBP had twice previously told NYCC 1959 it needed to pay (see 1502060042. CIT later vacated its penalty judgment after the government discovered inaccuracies in witness testimony (see 1503260012). Now that the government has corrected the issue, CIT has again ordered NYCC to pay the penalty.