Justia International Trade Opinion Summaries

CPZ imported tapered roller bearings by selling them to an unaffiliated U.S. importer, which then sold them to CPZ’s U.S. affiliate which resold them to unaffiliated U.S. customers. The Department of Commerce requested that CPZ identify whether its sales were export price (EP) sales or constructed export price (CEP) sales for purposes of calculating CPZ’s antidumping duty margin. CPZ provided CEP data. It did not provide EP data. Timken, an intervening domestic bearing producer, urged Commerce to calculate CPZ’s margin on an EP basis. Commerce did not require CPZ to submit the EP data, but calculated CPZ’s margin on a CEP basis, using the data provided. After Commerce issued the Preliminary Results, Timken again submitted comments. In its Final Results, Commerce changed course and calculated CPZ’s margin on an EP basis, using limited EP data previously provided, relating to a small subset of the imported bearings. Commerce calculated a margin of 92.84%. The Court of International Trade remanded. On remand, Commerce twice requested EP data. CPZ responded that it had been sold and the new owners had not maintained that data. After a second remand, under protest, Commerce calculated a 6.52% margin using the CEP data, without applying adverse facts available. The Court of International Trade affirmed. The Federal Circuit vacated. Commerce’s application of adverse facts available in its First Remand Redetermination was supported by substantial evidence; the Trade Court should reinstate Commerce’s application of adverse facts available and its calculation of CPZ’s margin in its First Remand Redetermination. View "Peer Bearing Co. - Changshan v. United States" on Justia Law

The Department of Commerce sets cash deposit rates associated with imported goods to curb “dumping,” i.e., exporting goods far below typical market prices, 19 U.S.C. 1673e(a)(3). Commerce found that a U.S. industry was threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain cased pencils from China, imposed anti-dumping duties, and later initiated administrative reviews for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. During the 2008-2009 review period, Michaels imported cased pencils manufactured by three producers in China and exported by three different exporters. The producers participated in the review process, but two withdrew. None of the Chinese exporters participated. The producers’ rates were established for the two review periods. Commerce assigned Michaels’ exporters a country-wide anti-dumping cash deposit rate, as opposed to lower rates obtained by the pencils’ producers. Michaels argued that it was entitled to the producer rate based on 19 C.F.R. 351.107(b)(2), which states that “if the Secretary has not established previously a combination cash deposit rate . . . for the exporter and producer in question or a noncombination rate for the exporter in question, the Secretary will apply the cash deposit rate established for the producer.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, reasoning that section 351.107(b)(2) is informed by section 351.107(d), which establishes an initial noncombination rate for all producers and exporters in nonmarket economy countries. View "Michaels Stores, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Department of Commerce conducted new shipper review, at Sea-line’s request, on an outstanding 1994 antidumping order on fresh garlic imports from China. New shipper review covers an importer or producer that was not subject to an initial antidumping duty investigation and thinks it is entitled to an individual anti-dumping duty margin, 19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2), and covers imports after the review period for the initial investigation. Commerce conducted Sea-line’s review for the period of November 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009. Because China is a non-market economy, Commerce used surrogate values from a comparable market economy (India), relying on price data from the APMC Bulletin, which reports daily prices in India for garlic bulbs of various “grades.” Sea-line reported bulbs in the grade Super A category. The APMC Bulletin did not report any prices for grade Super A bulbs for the period of review. Commerce averaged the closest available data points for grade Super A garlic, which was for November 2007 through April 2008 and applied the Wholesale Price Index for India published by the International Monetary Fund. Commerce calculated a “surrogate financial ratio” for general expenses, overhead, and profit by averaging financial statements of two Indian tea producers, reasoning that "tea, rice, and vegetable processing is similar to garlic because each is not highly processed or preserved prior to sale.” The Court of International Trade affirmed the final results and assignment of an antidumping duty. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the results were based on substantial evidence.View "Qingdao Sea-line Trading Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Relator filed suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, alleging that the HP products Govplace sold to the federal government originated from non-designated countries, in violation of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA), 19 U.S.C. 2501-2581. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Govplace, concluding that the district court properly exercised its discretion in managing discovery and that Govplace reasonably relied on Ingram Micro's certification. The court concluded that a contractor like Govplace is ordinarily entitled to rely on a supplier's certification that the product meets TAA requirements. In this case, Govplace has informed the GSA during multiple Contractor Administrator Visits that it relies on Ingram Micro's Program in representing that the country of origin information for the items listed in its GSA schedule is accurate, and GSA's Administrative Report Cards evaluating Govplace have all concluded that Govplace has complied with the TAA. View "Folliard v. Government Acquisitions, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

In 2008, plaintiffs were driving a 2004 Jeep Cherokee in San Joaquin County, when the vehicle rolled over and the roof collapsed. Young sustained injuries, rendering her a permanent quadriplegic. Young’s daughter allegedly suffered physical and emotional harm. They filed suit, claiming that the roof and restraint systems were defectively designed. The vehicle at issue was designed, manufactured, and distributed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DCC), a former indirect subsidiary of Daimler. Among others, the complaint named Daimler and DCC as defendants. Daimler is a German public stock company that designs and manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany and has its principal place of business in Stuttgart. Before 1998, DCC was known as Chrysler Corporation. After a 1998 agreement, Chrysler Corporation became an indirect subsidiary of Daimler and changed its name to DCC. DCC was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. It ceased to be a subsidiary of Daimler in 2007, changing its name to Chrysler LLC. Daimler is not a successor-in-interest to DCC or Chrysler LLC. Plaintiffs served Daimler with the complaint in accordance with the Hague Convention. The trial court quashed service for lack of personal jurisdiction over Daimler AG. The court of appeal affirmed, relying on the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman. View "Young v. Daimler AG" on Justia Law

GRK’s R4 Screws, RT Composite Trim Head Screws, and Fin/Trim Head Screws are made with corrosion-resistant case-hardened steel and are marketed for use as building material fasteners. R4 screws have a flat self- countersinking head designed to cut away at the top layer of the material as the screw is driven into place. RT and Fin/Trim screws are recommended for fine carpentry and trim applications, and have much smaller heads, designed to prevent cracking and splitting of the target material. GRK imported the subject screws between January and August 2008. U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified the screws at liquidation under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. (HTSUS) subheading 7318.12.00, “other wood screws,” which carries a 12.5% ad valorem duty. GRK protested, claiming that the screws should instead have been classified under subheading 7318.14.10, “self-tapping screws,” subject to a 6.2% ad valorem duty. Customs denied GRK’s protests. The Court of International Trade noted that HTSUS does not specifically define either subheading and agreed with GRK that the items were properly classified as “self-tapping screws.” The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, reasoning that the Trade Court refused to consider the use of the screws at any step of determining the classification. View "GRK Canada, Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

C.H. Robinson was the Customs-bonded carrier for three 2001 entries of wearing apparel from China, which entered the U.S. as Transportation & Exportation (T&E) entries, but were never exported and are “missing.” A Mexican company was the importer of record and consignee of the merchandise; the T&E entry documents indicated that the merchandise was to be delivered to Laredo, Texas, for exportation to Mexico. The merchandise left Los Angeles, but it is not clear what happened after that. Customs never inspected or took possession of the subject merchandise at the Port of Laredo. During an audit, Customs contacted Mexican Customs authorities and learned that stamped importation forms were false. Customs issued notices of liquidated damages claims against C.H. Robinson’s custodial bond, charging misdelivery. Based upon mitigation guidelines, Customs reduced the amount of liquidated damages from $75,000. C.H. Robinson paid $57,212 in 2004 and sought a refund. Customs also made a demand, under 19 U.S.C. 1553, for payment of $106,407.86, plus interest, for duties, taxes, and fees on the entries. C.H. Robinson did not protest the demand or pay the duties, and its challenge to Commerce’s assessment of liquidated damages remained stayed. The Court of International Trade held C.H. Robinson liable for duties, taxes, and fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "United States v. C.H. Robinson Co." on Justia Law

Fellowes filed a breach-of-contract suit against Changzou Fellowes, a business established in China, under the international diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2). Without discussing subject-matter jurisdiction, the district court entered a preliminary injunction in favor of Fellowes, despite the court’s assumption that Changzhou Fellowes had not been served with process. The Seventh Circuit vacated, reasoning that diversity jurisdiction is proper only if Changzhou Fellowes has its own citizenship, independent of its investors or members. Deciding whether a business enterprise based in a foreign nation should be treated as a corporation for the purpose of section 1332 can be difficult. Given the parties’ agreement that Changzhou Fellowes is closer to a limited liability company than to any other business structure in the U.S., it does not have its own citizenship and it does have the Illinois citizenship of its member Hong Kong Fellowes, which prevents litigation under the diversity jurisdiction. View "Fellowes Inc. v. Changzhou Xinrui Fellowes Office Equip. Co." on Justia Law

Idento makes robotic milking machines in the Netherlands. BouMatic, LLC, based in Wisconsin, entered into an agreement for purchasing and reselling those machines in Belgium. BouMatic claims that Idento breached the agreement by selling direct to at least one of BouMatic’s Belgian customers and by failing to provide parts and warranty service. The district court dismissed, ruling that commercial transactions in the European Union do not expose Idento to litigation in Wisconsin even though BouMatic has its headquarters there, the parties exchanged drafts between Wisconsin and the Netherlands, and Idento shipped one machine to Wisconsin. After exploring the nature of the business entities, the Seventh Circuit vacated for consideration of personal jurisdiction in light of the contract language. Litigants cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction by agreement or omission, but personal jurisdiction is a personal right that a litigant may waive or forfeit. View "BouMatic LLC v. Idento Operations BV" on Justia Law

Align’s Invisalign System, an alternative to conventional braces, uses a series of clear dental aligners that are worn sequentially over time to adjust the position of a patient’s teeth. The aligners must be custom-designed for the patient’s unique teeth. Align’s asserted patents are directed to methods and treatment plans using digital data sets. In 2005, Align’s founder and former CEO founded OrthoClear and used former Align employees to manufacture dental aligners. Align filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging that OrthoClear violated 19 U.S.C. 1337 by importing, selling for importation, or selling within the U.S., aligners that infringe Align’s patents, and by misappropriating Align’s trade secrets. A 2006 settlement required OrthoClear to assign its entire intellectual property portfolio to Align. The Commission entered the Consent Order and terminated the investigation. Suspecting that OrthoClear and others were violating the Consent Order, Align sought an enforcement proceeding. Rather than issuing an “initial determination,” the ALJ issued an order, denied a motion to terminate and scheduled a trial. The Commission concluded that the order constituted an “initial determination,” subject to its review, reversed, and terminated the enforcement proceeding, finding that the accused digital data sets were not covered by the scope of the consent order. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the Commission erred in reviewing the order. View "Align Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law