Justia International Trade Opinion Summaries

From 1987 to 2001, Bengis and Noll engaged in a scheme to harvest large quantities of South Coast and West Coast rock lobsters from South African waters for export to the United States in violation of both South African and U.S. law. Defendants, through their company, Hout Bay, harvested rock lobsters in amounts that exceeded the South African Department of Marine and Coastal Management’s quotas. In 2001, South Africa seized a container of unlawfully harvested lobsters, declined to prosecute the individuals, but charged Hout Bay with overfishing. Bengis pleaded guilty on behalf of Hout Bay. South Africa cooperated with a parallel investigation conducted by the United States. The two pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit smuggling and violate the Lacey Act, which prohibits trade in illegally taken fish and wildlife, and to substantive violations of the Lacey Act. Bengis pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act. The district court entered a restitution order requiring the defendants to pay $22,446,720 to South Africa. The Second Circuit affirmed, except with respect to the extent of Bengis’s liability, rejecting an argument the restitution order violated their Sixth Amendment rights. View "United States v. Bengis" on Justia Law

The Department of Commerce imposed both antidumping and countervailing duties on pneumatic tires from China under a 2012 law, 19 U.S.C. 1671, 1677f-1, that overruled the Federal Circuit’s 2011decision with respect to the same goods and permitted Commerce to impose countervailing duties with respect to non-market economy (NME) countries retroactively to proceedings initiated on or after November 20, 2006. When antidumping and countervailing duties imposed on the same goods double count for the same unfair trade advantage, the new law adjusts for double counting prospectively to proceedings initiated after March 13, 2012, but not retrospectively. The Court of International Trade upheld the decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court’s rejection of challenges to the new law on rehearing. The new law does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or the Due Process Clause. View "GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

Licensees entered into a licensing agreement with Safeblood Tech for the exclusive rights to market patented technology overseas. After learning that they could not register the patents in other countries, Licensees sued Safeblood for breach of contract and sued Safeblood, its officers, and patent inventor for fraud, constructive fraud, and violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ark. Code 4-88-101 to -115. The district court dismissed the fraud claims at summary judgment. The remaining claims proceeded to trial and a jury found for Licensees, awarding them $786,000 in contract damages and no damages for violations of the ADTPA. The district court awarded Licensees $144,150.40 in prejudgment interest. The Eighth Circuit reversed as to the common-law fraud claim and the award of prejudgment interest, but otherwise affirmed. Licensees produced sufficient evidence that the inventor made a false statement of fact; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it gave the jury a diminution-in-product-value instruction; and Licensees waived their inconsistent-verdict argument. View "Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

The Commerce Department determined that shrimp imported from India were being sold in the U.S. at less than fair market value. During administrative review of that antidumping order, shrimp exporters Apex and Falcon were selected as individual respondents. Commerce assessed 2.31% and 1.36% dumping margins by calculating the export price, starting with the packed price of shrimp charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. purchaser, then deducted expenses (19 U.S.C. 1677a(c)(2)(A)), including: foreign inland freight expenses, export inspection agency fees, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, international freight expenses, terminal handling charges, marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. inland freight expenses. Neither importer made sufficient sales in India during the review period for proper comparison with U.S. sales. Commerce compared the United Kingdom for Apex, and Japan, for Falcon. The companies ship to those countries, only covering costs necessary to deliver merchandise to the named destination port. For shipments to the U.S., they pay costs associated with importation, including duties and complying with customs formalities. Domestic shrimp producers challenged the dumping margins, arguing that the export price of the merchandise should be recalculated by deduction of the amount of antidumping duties assessed and paid on their exports, to increase the dumping margins. The Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Apex Exports v. United States" on Justia Law

Best, a Hong Kong manufacturer, produces Metalized Yarn from polyester chips melted with metal nanopowders to form monofilament yarns. Best sought a pre-importation ruling concerning proper tariff classification in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS), attaching a laboratory report describing the yarn as having a fiber content of 100% polyester, with 0.7%- 0.74% metal by weight. Customs classified the yarn as metalized yarn, HTSUS 5605.00.90, dutiable at 13.2%, stating “yarn combined with metal in the form of powder is considered a metalized yarn.” Best then sought a ruing regarding a “Johnny Collar” garment made of its yarn, asserting the garment was classifiable under HTSUS 6105.90.8030 as a shirt of other textile materials (duty rate 5.6%), not HTSUS 6110.30.3053 for polyester shirts (duty rate 32%). Based on trace amounts of metal and a label that stated “100% polyester,” Customs classified the sample as man-made non-metalized fibers under HTSUS 6110.30.3053. Customs subsequently revoked the Yarn Ruling, reclassifying the yarn as a polyester yarn under HTSUS 5402.47.90 (duty rate 8%). Customs also revoked the Johnny Collar Ruling as conflicting with the Yarn Ruling, but continued to classify the garment under 6110.30.30. Best challenged the Yarn Ruling Revocation, but not the Johnny Collar revocation. The Trade Court sustained the Revocation. The Federal Circuit vacated with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Best sought reversal of a Revocation, the effect of which would be to increase Best ’s own duty rate while benefiting manufacturers of products made from its yarn. The statute does not provide jurisdiction over such requests View "Best Key Textiles Co., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2001, the Department of Commerce imposed an antidumping duty order on honey imported from China. Dongtai was named a respondent in the 2012 tenth review of the Order. Commerce issued it non-market economy questionnaire, including Section A (General Information), and Sections C (U.S. Sales) and D (Production Factors). Dongtai timely responded to Section A, but responded to Sections C and D after receiving a one-day extension. Because the extension request was received less than six minutes before the deadline, Commerce warned Dongtai to file any future extension requests “as soon as it suspects additional time may be necessary.” Commerce issued a Supplemental Section A to address deficiencies in Dongtai’s original response. After the deadline, Dongtai requested an extension. Commerce found that “good cause [did] not exist . . . to extend retroactively” and removed the requests and Supplemental Response from the official record. Commerce determined that without the Supplemental Response, the record lacked sufficient information to calculate a separate rate for Dongtai; that Dongtai would be considered part of the China-wide entity; and that the China-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Commerce and relied on adverse facts available to determine the dumping margin. The Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

Downhole is a U.S. importer of “drill pipe” from a Chinese producer. Drill pipe, a specialized high-strength iron alloy tube used in oil-drilling, is manufactured in stages, starting with seamless raw steel “green tube,” that is processed and welded to complete the drill pipe. Green tube can also be processed into “oil country tubular goods,” primarily casing and tubing to transport oil and gas; drill pipe is primarily used in drilling. The Department of Commerce received a petition from domestic drill pipe producers, seeking imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on drill pipe from China. Downhole objected to the proposed scope of the investigation, arguing green tube should not be included because it was already covered by an ongoing investigation into oil country tubular goods. The Court of International Trade rejected Downhole’s scope arguments and remanded with instructions to reconsider surrogate values used for green tube. Commerce then examined all other potential surrogate values on the record and based the surrogate value for green tube on the average unit value of entries made under IHTS 7304.59.20 alone. The Trade Court and Federal Circuit affirmed the scope and industry support determinations and sustained Commerce’s Final Results as supported by substantial evidence. View "Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States" on Justia Law

The U.S. International Trade Commission initiated an investigation into whether a domestic industry was materially injured or threatened by imports of certain aluminum extrusions from China. The Department of Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. CWC companies submitted an amended scope request (19 C.F.R. 351.225(c)), asking Commerce to confirm that curtain wall units and other parts of curtain wall systems are subject to the orders. Curtain walls consist of components, which can be categorized as: aluminum extruded frame, with anchors, overlays, and other devices that attach the unit to the cement structure and adjoining units; infill material; and hardware to attach the curtain wall parts to the building and adjoining units. Yuanda challenged the CWC’s standing. Commerce found that CWC qualified under Tariff Act section 771(9)(C), “as manufacturers, producers, or wholesalers of a domestic like product.” Commerce determined Yuanda’s curtain wall units were within the order’s scope. The Trade Court and Federal Circuit affirmed the decision as supported by substantial evidence. View "Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

From 2004-2008, Georgiou and co-conspirators engaged in a stock fraud scheme resulting in more than $55 million in actual losses. The scheme centered on four stocks, all quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board or the Pink OTC Markets Inc. The conspirators opened brokerage accounts in Canada, the Bahamas, and Turks and Caicos, which they used to trade stocks, artificially inflating prices. They were able to sell their shares at inflated prices and used the shares as collateral to fraudulently borrow millions of dollars from Bahamas brokerage firms. In 2006, Waltzer, a co-conspirator, began cooperating in an FBI sting operation. A jury convicted Georgiou of conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud. The district court sentenced him to 300 months’ imprisonment, ordered him to pay restitution of $55,823,398, ordered a special assessment of $900, and subjected Georgiou to forfeiture of $26,000,000. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the securities and wire fraud convictions were improperly based upon the extraterritorial application of United States law. The securities were issued by U.S. companies through U.S. market makers acting as intermediaries for foreign entities. The court also rejected claims of Brady and Jencks Act violations and of error on evidentiary and sentencing issues. View "United States v. Georgiou" on Justia Law

Newbridge, headquartered in Newbridge, Ireland, designs, manufactures and sells housewares and silverware around the world under the mark NEWBRIDGE HOME. Newbridge designs its products in Newbridge, Ireland, and manufactures someof its products there. In the U.S. its products are available for sale through its website and through retail outlets that feature products from Ireland. The NEWBRIDGE HOME mark is the subject of an International Registration, which was filed through the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Newbridge sought protection of the mark pursuant to the Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol, under which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) examines international registrations for compliance with U.S. law, 15 U.S.C. 1141. Newbridge disclaimed the word HOME apart from the mark as a whole in the application. It sought registration for listed items of silverware, jewelry, desk items and kitchenware. The Trademark Examiner refused to register the mark as being primarily geographically descriptive. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed. The evidence as a whole suggests that Newbridge, Ireland, is not generally known; to the relevant public the mark NEWBRIDGE is not primarily geographically descriptive of the goods, which is what matters. View "In re: Newbridge Cutlery Co." on Justia Law