The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 20-26:
The Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau approved a consent decree resolving its investigation of whether Icom America imported and sold marine radios in the U.S. that didn't include required public safety features. The rules require marine radios to “include the full range of features recommended by the Radiocommunication Sector of the International Telecommunication Union to enhance emergency and safety-of-life communications from and between maritime vessels,” the bureau said in an order (here). Icom “admits that, by failing to include these features, its radios did not comply with the Commission’s rules,” the bureau said. Icom agreed to pay a $20,000 civil penalty and implement a compliance plan to prevent future violations, the bureau said. Icom didn't comment.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 13-19:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 6-12:
The Supreme Court on June 6 declined to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the requirement that importers pay duties before filing suit at the Court of International Trade, denying a petition filed by International Custom Products without further explanation (here). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in June last year that the duty payment for court challenges of denied customs protest does not violate International Custom Products’ right to due process (see 1506300073). The now-bankrupt importer would have had to pay $28 million to have its case heard at CIT on the classification of white sauce. International Custom Products argued a CBP notice of action improperly revoked a ruling letter without the required notice and opportunity to comment (see 12121239).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 30 - June 5:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 23-29:
The Federal Communications Commission fined a Chinese company $34.9 million for allegedly marketing​ 285 models of signal jamming devices to U.S. consumers. C.T.S. Technology marketed the devices through its Aiswa.com website, the FCC said (here). “These devices, which were advertised for sale to U.S. consumers, were designed to disrupt a variety of communications systems, including all major cellphone networks, Wi-Fi systems, and even Global Positioning System channels," said the forfeiture order approved by the agency's commissioners. “Some of the more dangerous devices were advertised as having the capacity to jam communications for a distance of over one-half mile.” The FCC said the company sold some of the devices to FCC investigators posing as consumers and shipped the equipment to the U.S. C.T.S. Technology didn't comment. When the fine was proposed, the FCC said it was the biggest in its history (see 14062016).
Five men accused of importing and peddling fake perfumes face several charges, said ICE in a news release (here). Among other charges, Patrick Badal, Kaium Shah, Kenny Ni, Abul Kashem, and Parvez Shazzed "are each charged with one count of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and one count of trafficking in counterfeit goods, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison," said ICE. The conspirators "allegedly imported generic liquid fragrances from China, separately imported boxes and packaging bearing counterfeit trademarks from China, packaged the generic liquid fragrances into the branded and trademarked packaging, and then sold counterfeit perfumes to wholesalers in New York and at least six other states," said ICE.
A chemical imported by Chemtall is not an amide, but is instead a derivative of an amide, even though it underwent no process to transform it from an amide, said the Court of International Trade in a decision issued May 25 (here). Chemtall had originally classified its acrylamide tertiary butyl sulfonic acid (ATBS) as an amide under subheading 2924.19.11, dutiable at 3.7%. CBP disagreed, classifying it as a derivative of an amide under subheading 2924.19.80, which has a 6.5% duty rate. The court agreed that the chemical is not an amide because, according to the Explanatory Notes, amides include only an amide functional group and some combination of hydrogen groups and aryl or alkyl radicals. ATBS includes a substituted hydrocarbyl as one component, partly made of sulfur. Chemtall argued its ATBS is not a processed form of amide, and therefore cannot be a “derivative of an amide,” but CIT said “derivative” refers to a compound structurally related to another compound, not solely a compound chemically produced from another compound. “Here, ATBS is a derivative of acrylamide because they share the same chemical structure except for the [hydrocarbyl compound].”