A federal court in New York will allow a wrongful termination lawsuit against an importer to proceed, after finding the former employee may have been protected by the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The Western New York U.S. District Court on Feb. 27 refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Colin Chase that alleges he was fired for raising concerns with his employer, Brothers International, that the company was engaging in questionable food safety practices. Under FSMA, it’s illegal for a company to fire an employee for raising food safety concerns.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 18 confirmed the legality of parts of a 2012 law allowing the imposition of countervailing duties on goods from non-market economy countries like China and Vietnam. The Appeals Court affirmed a year-old Court of International Trade decision, finding provisions for adjustment of “double counting” that only apply to CV duty cases decided after 2012 do not violate the Constitution.
The Massachusetts U.S. District Court on March 12 ruled that an apparel importer can’t collect insurance on merchandise seized during a bankruptcy proceeding from its contract manufacturer in the Dominican Republic. Eveden had taken out an “all risk” insurance policy from the Northern Assurance Company of America. It said that policy covered women’s undergarments produced for Eveden by F&J International that were sitting in F&J’s facility in a duty free zone in the Dominican Republic when they were seized to cover the manufacturer’s debts. But the court said the loss was not the type of unforeseen event covered by an all risk policy, and in any case found that the garments were owned by F&J under Dominican Republic law.
A New York woman on March 14 was sentenced to over 21 years in prison for her role as the leader of a group that exported stolen luxury cars worth over $2.5 million to West Africa, said the Justice Department. Hope Kantete of Brooklyn had been convicted in June of 10 counts of transportation of stolen vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce and a one count of conspiracy to transport stolen vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce, said DOJ.
The Court of International Trade recently reminded members of its bar in good standing that they must submit a renewal registration form and a $50 registration fee by June 1. Lawyers that do not re-register will be removed from the CIT, without prejudice to his or her ability to apply for readmission as a new member. Law firms can submit a combined payment, said CIT. Under CIT Rule 74, the court requires lawyers that practice at the court to register every five years. The registration form is available (here).
The Court of International Trade recently announced changes to its Standard Chambers Procedures, as well as changes to filing fees that follow from increases in fees at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The change to the Standard Chambers Procedures removes a requirement that, if a lawyer becomes aware of an error in a brief, he or she must tell CIT through an error memorandum (here). The changes in filing fees mirror CAFC increases in December (see 13112526), and affect fees for appealing to CAFC, record retrieval, and payments returned or denied for insufficient funds (here). The changes take effect April 1.
Two manufacturers of ball bearings based in Japan have asked the Supreme Court to decide the longstanding issue of judicial deference in antidumping and countervailing duty cases. In a petition for certiorari dated Feb. 21, NSK and JTEKT argue that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should only overturn AD/CVD cases at the Court of International Trade if it finds the trade court made an error. Currently, CAFC usually takes a fresh look at each side’s arguments. The Supreme Court appeal says that de novo review creates inefficiency and unpredictability for litigants.
Sequestration took a toll on the processing of federal court cases, according to a report from the Judicial Conference of the U.S. announced on March 11. Lower funding levels mean there are 15 percent less staff at clerks’ offices, probation and pretrial services offices, and courts of appeals offices in federal courts than there were two and a half years ago, said the report. That has resulted in slower processing of federal civil cases, with the average time to process a case rising from 7.3 months in October 2011 to 8.5 months in September 2013, it said.
A California importer has paid $1.2 million to settle a False Claims Act lawsuit that alleged it fudged entry documentation, said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California on March 12. Bizlink Technology, an importer of computer cable assemblies located in Fremont, California, allegedly underpaid customs duties on goods it imported from China based on false invoices. A whistleblower that used to work for the company brought the lawsuit and will share in the proceeds.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 11 confirmed a lower court ruling that found Marvin Furniture ineligible for its own individual antidumping duty rate in a new shipper review on wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-570-890). Commerce had ended the review because it found Marvin’s date of first entry had actually occurred nine months earlier than Marvin had indicated in its review request. Although the earlier date was still within the one year deadline from the date of first entry, Commerce nonetheless found that the errant date meant Marvin’s new shipper review request wasn’t complete and rescinded. Marvin argued that the mistake was harmless, and that Commerce should have continued based on the new information. But CAFC agreed with the Court of International Trade’s August 2012 decision (see 12082731), finding Commerce’s decision to be reasonable because the requirement that review requests be correct and complete is necessary to ensure the agency meets legal deadlines for conducting reviews.