The State Department fined a U.S. aerospace and technology company $13 million for illegally exporting technical data to several countries, including China, according to a May 3 order. Honeywell International sent drawings of parts for military-related items, including for engines of military jets and bombers, the agency said, all of which were controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. After discovering the violations, issuing a self-disclosure to the State Department and bolstering its compliance program, the company again illegally exported technical drawings, failing to abide by its improved compliance requirements, the order said.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 4 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Akin Gump added Cindy Owens, previously with Covington & Burling, as a counsel in its international trade practice, the firm said in a news release. Owens “represents multinational clients on customs matters, including classification, valuation, country of origin, drawback, transfer pricing, foreign trade zones, bonded warehouses, free trade agreements and general entry process requirements,” it said.
Changes made to the Court of International Trade's rules and fees took effect on May 3, according to an earlier notice of the amendments. Alterations to CIT Rules 3, 5, 15, Form 20 and Administrative Order 02-01 are now in force along with changes in fees made to the Schedule of Fees, Rule 74 and Form 10. The attorney admission certificate fee for the original admission of an attorney to practice was raised to $88, from $81.
The Court of International Trade remanded an antidumping case to the Commerce Department, finding that the agency's determination that wood flooring importer Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. was de facto controlled by the Chinese government lacked substantial evidence. Judge Richard Eaton, in the April 29 opinion, also found that Commerce's application of its non-market economy policy to Jilin did not clear the proper evidentiary standard, launching into an elongated discussion of the policy's original intent.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently upheld a lower court decision that found the Commerce Department correctly applied adverse facts available to a Mexican exporter after it submitted corrected cost data without adequate information in an antidumping duty administrative review.
San Diego-based tungsten products manufacturer Tungsten Heavy Powder settled a False Claims Act allegation for $5.6 million for false origin claim, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California said in an April 29 news release. The producer was accused of falsely certifying that it sourced materials from the U.S. for items made under contract with the government of Israel, funded by the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agreement Agency. The U.S. accused THP of falsely declaring that its Chinese-origin tungsten from China was from the U.S. The U.S. also alleged THP falsely certified that manufacturing occurred in the U.S., when it instead produced its products via a contract with a Mexican maquiladora factory.