A New Jersey U.S. District Court jury recently issued a not guilty verdict in a lawsuit alleging a glycine supplier intentionally misrepresented that glycine imported by Pharm-Rx was not of Chinese origin, when it was and ended up costing Pharm-Rx more than $700,000 in antidumping duties (see 1904020043). Following a six-day trial, the jury found that Pharm-Rx did not prove that BMP made any misrepresentation of country of origin that was likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the goods, nor did it make a material misstatement or omission of fact, or act in bad faith in performance of its contract with the importer, according to court documents. While the jury did find that BMP misrepresented or intentionally suppressed, concealed or omitted a “significant fact,” it found that Pharm-Rx’s reliance on that misrepresentation or intentional concealment was not justified. The court entered judgment in favor of BMP on Nov. 22.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 18-24:
Ford looks set to appeal its case on the tariff engineering of cargo vans to the Supreme Court, according to a recent filing. The automaker filed a request on Nov. 20 to delay its formal petition for a hearing until February. The Supreme Court granted the request and formally docketed the case. Ford is appealing a Federal Circuit decision issued in June that found its vans imported with passenger seats are classifiable as cargo vans because the vans were designed so that the seats could be removed post-importation (see 1906070061). That decision overturned an earlier ruling from the Court of International Trade, which had found the vans classifiable in their condition at the time of importation as passenger vans (see 1708170032). The Federal Circuit denied Ford’s request for a rehearing in October (see 1910280033)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled against an importer seeking to file a late request for a Generalized System of Preferences benefits program refund after it missed the deadline due to a miscommunication with its broker. Affirming a decision issued by the Court of International Trade in September 2018 (see 1809240017), the Federal Circuit found valid CBP’s denial of Industrial Chemical’s protest to request refunds of duties paid during the 2013-15 GSP lapse. The Dec. 28, 2015, deadline for requesting the refunds was set by law, and CBP had no discretion to allow refund requests beyond that date, CAFC said. And while the protest was filed within 180 days of CBP’s denial of GSP refunds, it had to be filed within 180 days of the relevant entry’s liquidation, and it was not, the Federal Circuit said.
U.S. government searches of international travelers’ phones and laptops without warrant or probable cause violate the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. District Court in Boston ruled on Nov. 12. Alasaad v. McAleenan involved controversial airport searches by CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Massachusetts filed the lawsuit. “This is a great day for travelers who now can cross the international border without fear that the government will, in the absence of any suspicion, ransack the extraordinarily sensitive information we all carry in our electronic devices,” EFF senior staff attorney Sophia Cope said. The Department of Homeland Security didn't comment.
The withdrawal of an exemption from solar cells safeguards for bi-facial cells is still on hold, after the Court of International Trade on Nov. 7 issued a temporary restraining order blocking implementation until at least Nov. 21. The court’s order bars the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and CBP from withdrawing the exclusion from safeguard duties or modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to end the exemption. Though it expires Nov. 21, the temporary restraining order may be renewed or replaced by a more permanent preliminary injunction that is currently being considered by CIT. The withdrawal of the exclusion for bi-facial solar cells was initially supposed to take effect Oct. 28 (see 1910080054), before a legal challenge filed by Invenergy and joined by the Solar Energy Industries Association prompted a delay of the withdrawal (see 1911050034).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 4-10:
The Justice Department is pursuing criminal charges against Aventura Technologies of Commack, New York for selling Chinese-origin goods falsely labeled U.S.-origin to the U.S. government and others, the U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of New York said in a news release. Seven current and former employees are also charged, it said. "Aventura imported networked security products from PRC manufacturers with known cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and resold them to U.S. military and other government installations while claiming that they were American-made," said the DOJ.
No lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade, and no appeals of CIT decisions were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, during the week of Oct. 28 - Nov. 3.
The Court of International Trade ordered that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative delay the effective date for a planned withdrawal of an exclusion to Section 201 safeguard measures. The Oct. 25 order, which was approved by Judge Gary Katzmann, followed an agreement between the Justice Department and Invenergy Renewables, which filed a challenge to the withdrawal. Invenergy, which is represented by Crowell and Moring, filed a complaint on Oct. 22 that asked the CIT for an injunction blocking the withdrawal due to what the company said were various statutory violations. The USTR on Oct. 9 said it would withdraw the exclusion for bifacial solar panels consisting only of bifacial solar cells on Oct. 28. Both sides agreed to extend the effective date to Nov. 8. That will give the CIT "additional time to address the arguments that the parties put forth in their respective filings and, thus, foster the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this action," Invenergy said in an Oct. 25 filing.