Justia International Trade Opinion Summaries

The Court of International Trade rejected the Department of Commerce’s interpretation of an antidumping order, imposed under 19 U.S.C. 1673a(b), on nails from the People’s Republic of China. The Trade Court held that nails included in certain household tool kits imported by Target were subject to the order. The Federal Circuit vacated, noting that whether a “mixed media” item (a tool kit) is subject to an antidumping order that covers included merchandise is not addressed in the regulations. Commerce has historically treated the answer as depending on whether the mixed media item is to be treated as a single, unitary item, or a mere aggregation of separate items. Remand is necessary for Commerce to revisit its mixed media determination in light of a statutory requirement that any implicit mixed media exception to the literal scope of the order be based on preexisting public sources. Problems presented by this case could be avoided if Commerce identified, in its antidumping orders or in prospective regulations, factors that it will consider in resolving mixed media and other cases. View "Mid Cont't Nail Corp v. United States" on Justia Law

Appellant fled to the United States after a Hong Kong magistrate issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of smuggling, evasion of customs duties, bribery, conspiracy to defraud, and money laundering. On appeal, appellant challenged the district court's grant of an application under 28 U.S.C. 2467(d)(3) for a restraining order to preserve appellant's assets. The court concluded that the district court's restraining order was issued in a manner consistent with the procedural due process protections of 18 U.S.C. 983(j)(1)(A) where the applicable foreign criminal or forfeiture proceedings in this case afforded protections consistent with those afforded by the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint in the United States. The court need not decide whether all of those proceedings were required, or whether fewer or different proceedings would have sufficed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the proceedings appellant was afforded was sufficient to satisfy the mandate of section 2467(d)(3). View "Luan, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction of importing wire hangers without paying the proper duties. The court concluded that the district court incorrectly applied U.S.S.G. 2C1.1 where defendant did not engage in "improper use of government influence," bribery, or extortion, nor did he conspire to do so. Instead, the district court should have applied U.S.S.G. 2T3.1 for evading import duties or restrictions. In regards to calculations for the amount of loss, the court did not resolve the question of which rates apply to which wire hangers, but left the question for the district court to decide on remand under the proper sentencing guideline. View "United States v. Huizar-Velazquez" on Justia Law

Triple A, a Michigan corporation, has offices in Dearborn, Michigan, the Congo (previously known as Zaire), and Sierra Leone. In 1993, Zaire ordered military equipment worth $14,070,000 from Triple A. A South Korean manufacturer shipped the equipment to Zaire at Triple A’s request. For 17 years, Triple A sought payment from Zaire and then the Congo without success. In 2010, Triple A sued the Congo for breach of contract. The district court dismissed the case, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1602. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, citing the language of the Act, under which federal courts have jurisdiction “in any case in which the action is based upon” the following: [1] a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or [2] upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or [3] upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States. View "Triple A Int'l, Inc. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo" on Justia Law

For more than 20 years, members of the U.S. softwood lumber industry accused Canada of unfairly subsidizing production of softwood lumber, resulting in a substantial amount of litigation. The U.S. and Canada have entered into several agreements intended to resolve the dispute. Under a 2006 agreement, the Department of Commerce agreed to refund duties collected on Canadian lumber after May, 2002, approximately $5 billion. Canada agreed that for seven years after the 2006 effective date, it would impose export taxes on certain softwood lumber exported to the U.S. and distribute $1 billion to U.S. groups, half to be distributed to benefit members of the Coalition. Plaintiffs are U.S. softwood lumber producers who are not members of the Coalition. Plaintiffs sued, asserting that by agreeing to a distribution that did not include all members of the domestic softwood lumber industry, the U.S. Trade Representative acted outside of its authority; that the distribution violates equal protection; and that the USTR wrongfully delegated to the Coalition the function of determining how much each affected domestic producer should receive. On remand, the Trade Court dismissed three counts for failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that plaintiffs failed to allege facts to make plausible any of its claims. View "Almond Bros. Lumber Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Shapiro, a U.S. affiliate of Aifudi, imports laminated woven sacks manufactured and exported by Aifudi in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In 2008, the Department of Commerce found that those sacks were being sold in the U.S. at less than fair market value (19 U.S.C. 1673) and issued an antidumping-duty order. Aifudi participated, submitted verified information, and demonstrated that it was not subject to government control. Aifudi was assigned a “separate rate” of 64.28 percent, not the default PRC-wide rate. In a later review, conducted at Aifudi’s request, of the amount of the duty for a defined period, Commerce considered Aifudi’s eligibility for a company-specific rate for that period. Commerce published preliminary results, favorable to Aifudi. Aifudi immediately withdrew from the proceeding and removed its confidential information from the record. Commerce concluded that the record no longer contained enough verifiable information to prove that Aifudi was not subject to government control and assigned Aifudi the default PRC-wide rate for the review period. Shapiro appealed. The Court of International Trade upheld the decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding that Commerce’s decision to apply the PRC-wide rate to Aifudi was supported by substantial evidence and did not violate any law. View "AMS Assocs., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Delta filed suit against the Bank, under the Export-Import Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 635(b)(1)(B), arguing that the Bank failed to consider the effects of loan guarantees given to Air India so that Air India could purchase Boeing airplanes. The district court entered judgment in favor of the Bank and Delta appealed. The court reversed, concluding that the Bank failed to reasonably explain its application of the Act in this case, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. The court directed the district court to remand the case to the Bank for further proceedings, but the district court should not vacate any of the Bank's actions in this matter to date. View "Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of the U.S., et al." on Justia Law

The companies, which import clothing and footwear, filed suit in the Court of International Trade, alleging that classifications in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States discriminated on the basis of age or gender in violation of the equal protection clause of the Due Process Clause. Those classifications assess different tariff rates depending on whether footwear or clothing is subcategorized as being for youth, men, or for women. The Trade Court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Where a law is facially neutral, a party pleading discrimination under equal protection must show that the law has a disparate impact resulting from a discriminatory purpose. Proving discriminatory intent requires more than mere awareness of consequences; it would require proving that Congress enacted the classifications “because of, not merely in spite of, [their] adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” View "Rack Room Shoes v. United States" on Justia Law

This case involved the district court's order requiring the Office of the United States Trade Representative to disclose a classified document describing the government's position during international trade negotiations. The only document that remained in dispute was a white paper referred to in the district court proceedings as "document 1," which consisted of the Trade Representative's commentary on the interpretation of the phrase "in like circumstances." The court concluded that the Trade Representative properly withheld the document as exempt from disclosure under exemption 1 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1), because the white paper was properly classified as confidential. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "Center For Int'l Env. Law v. Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., et al." on Justia Law

In 2006 InterDigital granted LG a license to certain patents concerning devices capable of wireless voice or data communications, including devices designed to operate in accordance with second-generation (2G) wireless standards and devices designed to operate in accordance with third-generation (3G) wireless standards. After the contract terminated, InterDigital filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, claiming violation of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by importing devices that infringed patents relating to 3G wireless technology. The ITC terminated the investigation as to LG, based on an arbitration clause in the contract. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that there was no plausible argument that the case arose from the patent license contract between the companies. View "InterDigital Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law