The Commerce Department may use a substantial transformation analysis to determine the country of origin of a given product in scope rulings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an April 25 decision. Vacating a holding of the Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit found Commerce did not err when it looked into whether Chinese intermediate goods were transformed into Indonesian finished goods when determining whether to apply antidumping duties on oil country tubular goods from China.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 16-22:
The Court of International Trade extended a recently issued temporary restraining order that prevented CBP from requiring a bond of about $125,000 per shipment on an auto parts importer (see 1804090031). The April 19 ruling said the TRO would remain until May 9 in order to allow for a hearing on a motion to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction. The CIT also ruled on April 12 that a 75 percent bond, proposed by CBP as a reduction from the initial enhanced bonding requirement, could also cause irreparable harm. Instead, U.S. Auto Parts' "single entry bond shall be 3% of the declared commercial value of each shipment, which reflects the approximately 1% quantity of allegedly infringing goods present in the entries multiplied by three," the CIT said. U.S. Auto Parts filed the suit earlier this month in response to what it called excessive bonding requirements (see 1804050022).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 9-15:
The former chief financial officer of Scarborough International was sentenced to five years in prison for embezzling over $6.5 million from the customs brokerage and freight forwarder, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Missouri said in an April 13 press release. Douglas Lee Ferrell used company funds over an eight-year period, including to buy a multimillion-dollar residence in the Cayman Islands, concealing his embezzlement by controlling the company’s financial affairs “and finding ways to blame others for the company’s financial woes,” the press release said. The fraud was only discovered when American Express canceled the company’s credit card, after which Ferrell admitted to the embezzlement and outlined a plan to pay the company back by selling his assets. The Western Missouri U.S. District Court also ordered Ferrell to pay back nearly $2 million remaining after his initial partial restitution.
A Canadian online pharmacy will pay nearly $35 million, and its owner will serve six months of house arrest and five years of probation, as part of a plea deal to charges that it smuggled misbranded and unapproved drugs and distributed counterfeit medication. CanadaDrugs.com and a web of affiliated companies pleaded guilty in December to undervaluing its entries to evade scrutiny as it distributed foreign drugs to doctors in the United States. A Montana federal judge sentenced the companies and Canada Drugs’ CEO, Kristjan Thorkelson, on April 13.
A court challenge of any Section 301 tariffs imposed on China would be possible, but difficult, according to a Congressional Research Service report dated March 29. The Court of International Trade does have jurisdiction over Section 301 duties under 18 USC 1581(i), and has heard several cases on past Section 301 actions, the report said. But the challenger must clear a high bar to succeed, it said. Because Section 301 actions involve trade negotiations, the U.S. trade representative is given much deference by the court, possibly rendering USTR’s actions unreviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act, CRS said. “Because Section 301 investigations involve consultations with other countries and other foreign relations-related issues, a degree of discretion is afforded to the actions the USTR takes,” the report said. “What remains open to challenge before the courts, however, are allegations of statutory misinterpretations on the part of the USTR, violations of the statute’s procedures, actions that exceed the authority delegated to the USTR by statute, and similar claims,” it said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 2-8:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 26 - April 1:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 19-25: