The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 17-23:
The Court of International Trade held oral arguments Dec. 19 in a case filed by steel importers alleging that Section 232 tariffs are unconstitutional (see 1806270036). The American Iron and Steel Institute, which filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit, put out a statement Dec. 19 that said: "We continue to strongly believe this case is without merit and the effort by importers of foreign steel to undermine the Section 232 relief through this case is bound to fail. Congress acted within its constitutional authority when it authorized the president to take action to adjust imports, when the Secretary of Commerce has determined that such imports threaten to impair the national security."
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 10-16:
A company and two individuals were charged over an alleged scheme to smuggle "purported dietary supplement ingredients" into the U.S., the Justice Department said in a recent news release. Bao Luu, Lynn Chau and Chau's company, Pure Assay Ingredients, are accused of deceiving Food and Drug Administration and CBP inspectors, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. Two Chinese citizens were also charged, it said. The indictment alleged that the scheme used mislabeling of "certain stimulants and other questionable ingredients as non-controversial substances to evade government scrutiny during import," the DOJ said. It's also alleged "that the defendants sold the smuggled substances to dietary supplement manufacturers in the United States for use in consumer products. In one instance, the indictment contends that Chau and Luu assembled a false shipment to fool FDA into believing that Pure Assay destroyed substances the agency blocked from distribution. In reality, Pure Assay already had shipped out the real products and presented mislabeled substitutes for destruction."
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 3-9:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 26 - Dec. 2:
A ban on imports of some Mexican seafood will remain in effect, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 28 denied a motion to stay the lower court ruling that set the ban. The Court of International Trade in July granted the preliminary injunction (see 1807260039), which bans importation of fish and fish products from Mexican commercial fisheries that use gillnets within the range of the endangered vaquita, amid concerns the fishing practice is driving the porpoise species to extinction. CBP subsequently set certification requirements for Mexican seafood in response to the court order (see 1808290047). Now on appeal, the Federal Circuit said in a one-page, non-precedential decision that the government “has not established that a stay of the order pending appeal is warranted here.” It did, however, leave the door open to a quick resolution of the case. “Given the urgency expressed in the government’s motion and the fact that the government self-expedited the filing of its opening brief, the court notes that it will consider a motion by the government to expedite oral argument in this appeal.”
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 29 declined to rule in favor of an importer facing nearly $3.5 million in penalties and unpaid duties based on allegations it fraudulently misclassified and undervalued entries of wearing apparel, sending the case to trial to decide whether the government missed the statute of limitations for customs penalty cases. Greenlight Organic denies the allegations, and also says the government filed its action more than five years after it purportedly found out about the violations. The government says it’s still within the five-year period of when it first obtained double-invoicing records from Greenlight. “More facts are needed to ascertain when the Government first had knowledge of Greenlight’s fraudulent misclassification and undervaluation activities, including when the Government began to suspect a potential double-invoicing scheme and when the Government had knowledge of an intent to defraud with respect to the misclassification of entries,” CIT said. Because more facts are necessary, CIT denied Greenlight’s motion for summary judgment and said Greenlight and the government could submit more evidence on the statute of limitations issue at trial.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 19-25:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 12-18: