Justia International Trade Opinion Summaries

In 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment invalidating BriarTek’s patent claims, which BriarTek had asserted against DBN in a parallel investigation by the International Trade Commission (ITC). The court upheld the ITC’s imposition of a $6,242,500 civil penalty for DBN’s violation of a consent order, in which it agreed not to import or sell in the U.S. any two-way global satellite communication devices that infringe those claims. The court stated that the invalidation of the asserted claims did not negate DBN’s pre-invalidation violations of the consent order.DBN petitioned the ITC to rescind or modify the civil penalty order. Following a remand, the ITC again denied DBN’s petition. The ITC reassessed the relevant factors for determining civil penalties and concluded that the invalidation of the asserted claims did not change its original assessment, citing: the good or bad faith of the respondent, the injury to the complainant, respondent’s ability to pay, the extent to which respondent has benefited from its violations, the need to vindicate the ITC’s authority; and the public interest. The ITC again noted that the consent order expressly accounted for the subsequent invalidation of the patent claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the determination as supported by substantial evidence. View "DBN Holding, Inc. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Cambodian villagers who alleged that they were trafficked into Thailand and subjected to forced labor at seafood processing factories sued under the civil remedy provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 18 U.S.C. 1595. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants.Section 1596 authorizes extraterritorial application of the Act for specific criminal trafficking offenses. Even assuming that section 1595 permits a private cause of action for extraterritorial violations of section 1596's substantive provisions if other requirements are satisfied, certain defendants were not “present in the United States” at any time relevant to the lawsuit as section 1596 requires. Even if section 1596 requires foreign companies to possess nothing more than minimum contacts with the United States, the plaintiffs did not meet that standard. The record did not support either specific or general jurisdiction as a basis for finding minimum contacts. The court rejected an argument that certain defendants were present in the U.S. through an agency relationship or joint venture with a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in California. The plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue that a Thai company registered to conduct business in California knowingly benefitted from the alleged human trafficking and forced labor abuses, financially and by accessing a steady stream of imported seafood. View "Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co. Ltd." on Justia Law

Canadian Solar produces and exports certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. The U.S. Department of Commerce, after an investigation, issued an order imposing a duty to counteract subsidies Canadian Solar received from the government of China. During its fourth administrative review of that countervailing duty order, Commerce determined that Canadian Solar received regionally specific electricity subsidies subject to countervailing duties under 19 U.S.C. 1677(5A)(D)(iv); Commerce identified electricity price variation across the different provinces and applied adverse facts available—due to the central government of China’s failure to cooperate in Commerce’s investigation—to conclude that the central government sets variable electricity pricing that is region-specific for development purposes.The Trade Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. The record supports Commerce’s conclusions. Commerce sufficiently and reasonably explained that it lacked key information because the government of China failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. As a result, Commerce was forced to fill informational gaps and properly relied on adverse inferences to find that Canadian Solar received a regionally specific electricity subsidy that must be countervailed. View "Canadian Solar, Inc. v United States" on Justia Law

In 2017, Kyocera filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging Koki was violating 19 U.S.C. 1337 by importing gas spring nailer products that infringe or were made using methods that infringe, certain claims in five patents. Those patents generally relate to linear fastener driving tools, like portable tools that drive staples, nails, or other linearly driven fasteners. The Commission held that Koki induced infringement.The Federal Circuit vacated. The ALJ erred in admitting certain expert testimony. The court upheld claim construction with respect to “driven position” and “main storage chamber” but rejected the construction of “lifter member.” The “safety contact element” and “fastener driving mechanism” should have been construed as separate components. View "Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc.v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

In an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea, the Department of Commerce found that a “particular market situation” (PMS) existed in the Korean market for welded line pipe. Commerce made an upward adjustment in its calculation of the costs of production of the subject welded line pipe for the two selected respondents, which resulted in enhanced antidumping duties. The Trade Court overturned Commerce’s determination holding that Commerce was not statutorily authorized to adjust the exporters’ costs of production to account for the existence of a PMS; “there is nothing in the statutory scheme which can be read to grant Commerce the authority to modify the [sales-below-cost] test to account for a PMS.” On remand, Commerce acquiesced under protest.The Federal Circuit agreed that the 2015 Trade Preferences Extension Act, which amended the constructed value calculation statute, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(e), does not authorize Commerce to use the existence of a PMS as a basis for adjusting a respondent’s costs of production to determine whether a respondent has made home market sales below cost. The court did not address whether Commerce’s finding of a PMS was supported by substantial evidence. View "Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

A 2005 Customs ruling letter stated that Kent’s imported bicycle seats would be classified as “accessories of bicycles” under HTSUS heading 8714, with a 10% ad valorem duty. In 2008, after Customs classified a competitor’s bicycle seats as “seats” under duty-free heading 9401. Kent started filing protests, post-entry amendments, and an application for further review. Customs approved the protests and reliquidated Kent’s merchandise under heading 9401. Kent sought revocation of the 2005 Ruling but continued to make entries through New York and lodged protests for each. Customs stopped granting those protests. Kent began to import the same merchandise through Long Beach under heading 8714. Long Beach Customs treated these entries as bypass entries and liquidated them under heading 8714 without examination or Customs officer review. Kent protested. Although the New York protests were granted, Kent’s Long Beach protests were denied. In 2014, Customs revoked its earlier decisions classifying Kent’s competitors’ merchandise under heading 9401, concluding that the merchandise would be classified under heading 8714. Customs declined to revoke the 2005 Ruling.The Trade Court rejected Kent’s claims that the classification violated 19 U.S.C. 1625(c) by departing from a “treatment previously accorded” and was contrary to a de facto “established and uniform practice” (EUP) under section 1315(d). The Federal Circuit reversed. The Trade Court erred in approving Customs’ use of bypass entries to show the absence of treatment previously accorded but properly found no de facto EUP. View "Kent International, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Wanxiang is a U.S. importer for Wanxiang Group, an automotive parts manufacturing company headquartered in China. In 1994-2001, Group and Wanxiang IE participated in Department of Commerce administrative reviews that covered entries of wheel hub assemblies that were subject to a 1987 antidumping duty order. Group and IE were assigned company-specific antidumping duty rates of zero percent. Wanxiang Q did not receive a company-specific antidumping duty rate because it did not participate in the reviews. Following a 2012 audit of Wangxiang, Customs found that some of the audited entries were imports from Q, subject to the China country-wide rate of 92.84%, and that, based on the sampling results, Wanxiang had underpaid dumping duties. In 2019, Customs issued a Penalty Notice.Wanxiang did not protest under 19 U.S.C. 1514 and has not made any payment but filed a complaint before the Trade Court, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i)(2) and (4). The court dismissed, concluding that it lacked “residual” jurisdiction because relief could have been available under a section 1581(c) action. Wangxiang has not shown that such relief would have been manifestly inadequate. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Wanxiang could have challenged the assessments by a protest under 19 U.S.C. 1514 and, if unsuccessful, by appealing to the Trade Court under 1581(a). Alternatively, Wanxiang could have initiated a test shipment and sought, as a new shipper, an administrative review, during which it could have argued the issues it raised in its complaint; the results of that review could have been challenged under 19 U.S.C. 1516a, invoking Trade Court jurisdiction under 1581(c). View "Wanxiang America Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

In an antidumping duty investigation on U.S. imports of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India, the Department of Commerce rejected Goodluck’s submission of supplemental data and relied on “adverse facts available” under 19 U.S.C. 1677e(b) for its less-than-fair-value analysis, which resulted in an antidumping margin of 33.8% ad valorem applicable to Goodluck’s imports. The Court of International Trade agreed with Goodluck that its submission was a permissible correction of a minor clerical error and that it was entitled to submit supplemental information up to the day of verification. Commerce, under protest, conducted a new less-than-fair-value analysis resulting in a zero-percent antidumping margin for Goodluck, which theTrade Court affirmed.The Federal Circuit reversed. Commerce’s initial determination—rejecting Goodluck’s supplemental submission on grounds that it constituted new factual information and not a minor or clerical correction of the record, and that the submission was unverifiable as it was submitted on the eve of verification—was supported by substantial evidence and not otherwise contrary to law. Goodluck’s revisions were a systemic change to the entire reported database. The revisions were not singular, such as a missing word or an error in arithmetic. View "Goodluck India Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

Ayla, a San Francisco-based brand, is the registered owner of trademarks for use of the “AYLA” word mark in connection with on-site beauty services, online retail beauty products, cosmetics services, and cosmetics. Alya Skin, an Australian company, sells and ships skincare products worldwide. Ayla sued in the Northern District of California, asserting trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1125(a).Alya Skin asserted that it has no retail stores, offices, officers, directors, employees, bank accounts, or real property in the U.S., does not sell products in U.S. retail stores, solicit business from Americans, nor direct advertising toward California; less than 10% of its sales have been to the U.S. and less than 2% of its sales have been to California. Alya Skin uses an Idaho company to fulfill shipments outside of Australia and New Zealand. Alya Skin filed a U.S. trademark registration application in 2018, and represented to potential customers that its products are FDA-approved; it ships from, and allows returns to, Idaho Alya Skin’s website listed U.S. dollars as the default currency and advertises four-day delivery to the U.S.The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the suit. Jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2) comports with due process. Alya Skin had minimum contacts with the U.S., and subjecting it to an action in that forum would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The company purposefully directed its activities toward the U.S. The Lanham Act and unfair competition claims arose out of or resulted from Alya Skin’s intentional forum-related activities. View "Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd." on Justia Law

Imported goods are generally subject to tariffs, duties, fees, and taxes, such as an excise tax. A “drawback” is a customs transaction involving the refund of payments made upon the importation of a good. The most common drawback occurs when duties that are paid when a good is imported are refunded when the same good is exported. A “substitution drawback,” involves the refund of duties, taxes, or fees that were paid upon importation and refunded when similar goods, normally merchandise classified under the same tariff schedule subheading, are exported. Since 2008, substitution drawback has been allowed for wine where the imported wine and exported wine are of the same color and the price variation does not exceed 50 percent. Substitution drawbacks could result in a near-total refund of both tariffs and excise taxes paid on imported wine where the substituted exported wine was either not subject to excise tax (having been exported from a bonded facility) or had received a complete refund of previously paid excise taxes, a “double drawback.”Treasury and Customs promulgated Rule.1, an interpretation of 19 U.S.C. 1313(v), intended to prevent “double recovery,” limits drawbacks to the amount of taxes paid and not previously refunded. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court in finding the Rule invalid. The Rule is contrary to the clear intent and structure of the statute. View "National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of the Treasury" on Justia Law