by
Amarin markets Vascepa®, a prescription drug consisting of eicosapentaenoic acid in ethyl ester form, synthetically produced from fish oil, intended to reduce triglyceride levels in adult patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia. Vascepa® is the only FDA-approved purified ethyl ester E-EPA product sold in the U.S. Amarin filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) under 19 U.S.C. 1337 (Tariff Act), alleging that certain companies were falsely labeling and deceptively advertising their imported synthetically produced omega-3 products as “dietary supplements,” where the products are actually “new drugs” under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) that have not been approved for use in the U.S. Amarin claimed that their importation and sale was an unfair act or unfair method of competition because it violates the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and the Tariff Act “based upon" FDCA standards. The FDA urged the Commission not to institute an investigation and to dismiss Amarin’s complaint, arguing that the FDCA prohibits private enforcement actions and precludes any claim that would “require[] the Commission to directly apply, enforce, or interpret the FDCA.” The ITC and Federal Circuit agreed.Amarin’s allegations are based entirely on FDCA violations; such claims are precluded by the FDCA, where the FDA has not yet provided guidance as to whether violations have occurred. Although Amarin claimed violations of the Tariff Act, its claims constituted an attempt to enforce the FDCA. View "Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

by
Rubies imports and sells traditional Christmas Santa Claus costumes, including the “Premier Plush 9 Piece Santa Suit,” which consists of a jacket, pants, gloves, a toy sack, a beard, a wig, a hat, a belt, and shoe covers. Rubies requested a binding pre-importation ruling from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on the tariff classification of the Santa Suit. Customs issued a Ruling Letter HQ, classifying the Santa Suit under several tariff classifications of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Rubies contended that all nine pieces fell under HTSUS chapter 95 as “[f]estive . . . articles,” requiring duty-free entry. The Court of International Trade upheld the tariff classification. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The merchandise is excluded from classification as “festive articles” by the notes to HTSUS chapter 95, referring to “fancy dress of textile material.” View "Rubies Costume Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

by
Irwin imported several styles of hand tools, including straight jaw locking pliers, large jaw locking pliers, curved jaw locking pliers with and without wire cutters, and long nose locking pliers with wire cutters. U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified Irwin’s tools as “wrenches” under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 8204.12.00 and denied each of Irwin’s protests to classify them as “pliers” under 8203.20.6030. The Trade Court granted Irwin summary judgment that the tools are properly classified as pliers. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The term pliers is not defined by use; it refers to a versatile hand tool with two handles and two jaws that are flat or serrated and are on a pivot, which must be squeezed together to enable the tool to grasp an object. The Irwin tools “1) are versatile hand tools, 2) have two handles, and 3) have two jaws, that are flat or serrated and are on a pivot, which can be squeezed together to enable the tools to grasp an object.” View "Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

by
The Court of International Trade sustained the remand determination of the Department of Commerce in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from Korea. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding Commerce’s determination to not make a circumstances of sale adjustment to normal value under 19 U.S.C. 1677b(a)(6)(C)(iii) in the form of a commission offset. Hyundai, the party seeking the adjustment, incurred no commission expenses on home market sales and no commission expenses outside the United States on U.S. sales but did incur commission expenses inside the United States on constructed export price sales in the United States. View "ABB, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

by
The Commerce Department issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering aluminum extrusions from China under 19 U.S.C. 1671,. In a previous case, the Federal Circuit upheld Commerce's ruling that the orders applied to certain imports of portions of “curtain wall”—the non-structural cladding of certain buildings such as office towers, composed of panels having aluminum frames and glass or other sheathing material, with the panels attached to steel, concrete, or other structural building elements. While that case was pending in the Court of International Trade, Yuanda sought a scope ruling that the orders do not cover curtain wall units when imported under a contract for an entire curtain wall. Commerce rejected that position. The Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit affirmed, first rejecting an argument that two parties lacked constitutional standing because the challenged decision pertains only to Yuanda’s merchandise. The orders exclude “subassemblies” only if they are “imported as part of the finished goods ‘kit," and “all of the necessary curtain wall units are imported at the same time.” That requirement focuses on the physical contents of the “packaged combination” at a particular time, not on contractual obligations that might link one packaged combination to another, later-entering one. Commerce properly found that the curtain wall units as entered were not ready for installation “as is.” View "Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

by
The U.S. Department of Commerce, on remand, imposed countervailing and anti-dumping duties (19 U.S.C. 1671) on the importation of solar cells and modules, laminates, and/or panels, containing solar cells imported or sold for importation from China. In defining the class or kind of merchandise within the scope of the orders, Commerce used a new test, rather than the typically-used “substantial transformation” test, to determine the country of origin. If Commerce had used the substantial transformation test, it would have concluded that the country of cell production confers origin because the process of assembling the solar cells into solar panels does not substantially transform those solar cells. The Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit upheld that determination as supported by substantial evidence. The Tariff Act does not require Commerce to define the “class or kind of [foreign] merchandise” in any particular manner. It is reasonable to use the country where the merchandise was assembled to define the class or kind of merchandise within the scope of the orders—especially where, as here, the very imports found to cause injury due to unfair pricing and/or subsidies were panels assembled in China containing cells produced in other countries. View "Canadian Solar, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

by
The U.S. Department of Commerce conducted an administrative review and a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from China, then imposed anti-dumping duties under 19 U.S.C. 1673. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s calculations of weighted average dumping margins for each respondent. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supports Commerce’s determination that the Oceana Report is the best available information on the record to value the surrogate financial Ratios. That report, prepared by a South African company, “is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.” Commerce noted that the Oceana Report was “contemporaneous with the [period of review]” and “contains the necessary information for [Commerce] to calculate appropriate financial ratios. View "China Kingdom (Beijing) Import & Export Co., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified ADC's imported merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Subheading 9013.80.90, which bears a duty rate of 4.5% ad valorem and covers “other optical appliances and instruments, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter.” The merchandise at issue “consists of fiber optic telecommunications network equipment” and “is included in [ADC’s VAMs] product line.” ADC argued that the merchandise should be classified under HTSUS Subheading 8517.62.00, which bears a duty-free rate, and covers “[t]elephone sets, including telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks” and “other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data." The Trade Court upheld the classification. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The merchandise falls within HTSUS Heading 9013’s definition of optical appliances or instruments. View "ADC Telecommunications, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

by
Doorknobs with integral locks, imported by Home Depot, were classified by U.S. Customs and Border Protection as locks under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) heading 8301. Home Depot argued that the products should have been classified under HTSUS heading 8302 as metal fittings for doors, including metal doorknobs. The International Trade Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the products are properly classified as composite goods within the meaning of HTSUS General Rule of Interpretation 3(b). The court remanded to the Trade Court to make a finding as to the “essential nature” of the composite goods, as directed by GRI 3(b), in order to determine under which of the two competing headings the goods should be classified. The two headings “each refer to part only” of the materials in the composite goods, and, according to GRI 3(a), the competing headings must be regarded as equally specific. View "Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

by
Dimond was hired by a Chinese manufacturer to “rig, dismantle, wash, and pack,” and ship used automotive assembly-line equipment to China. Dimond, which lacked experience in international shipment, hired BDP. Dimond asserted that BDP did not disclose that it was not a licensed Ocean Transport Intermediary by the Federal Maritime Commission. In May 2011, BDP informed Dimond that it had obtained a ship and sent a booking note to Dimond. Between May and October 2011, Dimond dismantled and weighed the equipment and prepared a “preliminary" packing list. BDP allegedly provided the preliminary packing list when it obtained quotes from third-party contractors to load the Equipment. In October 2011, BDP notified Dimond that the ship was no longer available. Dimond asserted that BDP “without Dimond’s knowledge, consent or approval” hired Logitrans to perform BDP’s freight forwarding duties. BDP and Logitrans hired a ship. As a result of many ensuing difficulties, Dimond became involved in multiple lawsuits, including suits with its Chinese customer and the stevedores. Dimond sued BDP in July 2013 but never served BDP with the complaint. When the summons expired, the district court dismissed without prejudice. In August 2017, Dimond filed a Motion to Amend and Praecipe for Issuance of Amended Summons for its 2013 suit. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. The suit was not timely filed within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. View "Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP International, Inc." on Justia Law