The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 4-10:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 27 - May 3:
The Court of International Trade on May 1 dismissed an importers challenge of charges that it is circumventing antidumping duties, finding that the importer did not first fully argue its case at the Commerce Department (here). Commerce had found Ceramark Technology was circumventing the AD duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from China by making 17-inch diameter electrodes that fell just outside the 16-inch maximum diameter in the scope of the AD duty order. According to Commerce, the change was minor enough that the electrodes should still be subject to AD duties. CIT at first sided with Ceramark, sending the anticircumvention determination back to Commerce in September so the agency could address Ceramark’s argument that the companies that originally requested the AD duties had chosen not to cover 17-inch diameter electrodes. However, after Commerce issued its redetermination making new arguments in favor of its finding of circumvention, Ceramark did not file a brief responding to the agency. As a result, the company did not fully argue its case at the administrative level and is not entitled to a judicial review of its case, said CIT.
The Justice Department will bring criminal charges against Lumber Liquidators for Lacey Act violations, according to the company’s quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29 (here). DOJ has been investigating Lumber Liquidators products since at least September 2013, when it executed a search warrant at the company’s corporate offices (see 13092716). According to news reports from that time, the raid may have been related to wood imported by Lumber Liquidators that originated in Russia but was entered as coming from a different company. Lumber Liquidators now reports that “in recent communications, the DOJ indicted that it is seeking criminal charges under the Lacey Act.” A DOJ spokesman said the “investigation is ongoing,” but declined to comment further.
Two victims of the 2013 Rana Plaza garment factory collapse in Bangladesh filed a class action lawsuit April 23 against the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, JCPenney, The Children’s Place, Wal-Mart at U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. Filed the day before the two-year anniversary of the disaster, which killed 1,129 Bangladeshi garment workers, the lawsuit alleges the three U.S. retailers (all of which sourced products from the ill-fated factory) and the Bangladeshi government should have known Rana Plaza was not safe, and caused the safety issues with their own actions.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 20-26:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 13-19
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 6-12:
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 31 denied a bid from the owners of several Land Rovers to save their vehicles from forfeiture for import violations. CBP had seized the Land Rovers after finding their entry documentation falsely claimed the vehicles were old enough to qualify for exemptions from Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation requirements. The owners of the vehicles argued that the forfeiture should not proceed because some of the vehicles are now old enough for the exemption. However, the court found that the customs law on forfeiture “does not accommodate vehicles that later ‘come into compliance’ due the passage of time.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 30 - April 5: