Justia International Trade Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, citizens and residents of China, alleged that they were injured by melamine-contaminated infant formula in China. Defendant, among others, manufactured and distributed the contaminated products exclusively to China. At issue was the district court's forum non conveniens dismissal. The court held that defendant carried its burden and showed that plaintiffs could obtain a remedy for their injuries either from the Chinese courts or a fund established by the Chinese government to compensate the children and families affected by contaminated infant formula (the Fund). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that China was an adequate alternative forum and the district court did not err by weighing the public and private interest factors, finding that China was a more convenient forum in which to adjudicate the dispute. Accordingly, the district court's forum non conveniens dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. View "Tang, et al. v. Synutra Int'l, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, domestic purchasers of magnesite, alleged that defendants, Chinese exporters, engaged in a conspiracy to fix the price of magnesite in violation of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 4, 16, predicated on alleged violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. The district court dismissed, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. 6a. The Third Circuit vacated. FTAIA states that the Sherman Act "shall not apply to conduct involving trade or commerce . . . with foreign nations" with two exceptions. The Sherman Act does apply if defendants were involved in "import trade or import commerce" or if defendants' "conduct has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect" on domestic commerce, import commerce, or certain export commerce and that conduct "gives rise" to a Sherman Act claim. FTAIA imposes a substantive merits limitation, not a jurisdictional bar. On remand, if the court addresses the "import trade" exception, it must assess whether plaintiffs adequately allege that defendants' conduct is directed at a U.S. import market and not solely whether defendants physically imported goods. If the court assesses the "effects exception" it must determine whether the alleged domestic effect would have been evident to a reasonable person making practical business judgments. View "Animal Science Prods. Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp." on Justia Law

Prior to defendant's trial for shipping telecommunications and navigation equipment to Iraq, in violation of an embargo (Executive Order 12722) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the district court denied a motion to suppress; granted a protective order to prevent disclosure of certain confidential documents to the defense; and excluded testimony from a defense witness. Following conviction, the the district court found the sentencing range to be 188-235 months, but only imposed concurrent sentences of 72 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The motion to suppress was properly denied; the affidavit would have provided a sufficient basis to establish probable cause, even if defendant's desired changes had been made. The court properly imposed a sentencing enhancement for an offense involving national security, but improperly applied U.S.S.G 251.1(a)(2); as "invited error," it did not warrant reversal. No Brady violations occurred. Newly-discovered evidence was not exculpatory and did not advance a theory that the government approved and assisted with the shipments. View "United States v. Hanna" on Justia Law

In 2003, Sunline imported frozen crawfish from China and procured security for required entry bonds from Hartford. The entries were subject to an antidumping order, but, after review by the International Trade Administration, were liquidated and a higher antidumping duty rate was levied. When Sunline did not pay, Customs sought payment from Hartford. Hartford learned that Sunline personnel had been arrested for using false invoices and claimed Customs' failure to disclose its investigation prior to issuance of the Sunline bonds was a material misrepresentation, making the bonds voidable. Under 19 U.S.C. 1514, Hartford had 90 days to file an administrative protest—which it did not do. Instead, Hartford filed suit under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i). The Court of International Trade held that Hartford should have reasonably known of its claims within the statutory time period and that the claims were within the scope of 19 U.S.C. 1514(c)(3), so that suit was unavailable; in effect, that it lacked jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. Hartford’s bonds did not cover the same shipments as those investigated, so it would be unlikely for Hartford to follow that action; the indictment was against two individuals, not against the company by name. View "Hartford Fire Ins. Co v. United States" on Justia Law

The company imports mellorine, a frozen dessert similar to ice cream, with vegetable or animal fat substituted for some of the butterfat. Mellorine is classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. Chapter 21, "Miscellaneous Edible Preparations," Heading 2105, "Ice cream and other edible ice, whether or not containing cocoa," (19 U.S.C. 1202). Customs liquidated the mellorine under Subheading 2105.00.40, which applies to "dairy products described in additional U.S. note 1 to Chapter 4" for amounts above a certain import quota. This note describes three categories of dairy products. The Court of International Trade entered summary judgment in favor of the company. The court determined that mellorine was prima facie classifiable only under Heading 2105 as edible ice, that milk is not the essential ingredient, the ingredient of chief value, nor the preponderant ingredient, and that the mellorine is not an article of milk.The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that that the mellorine does not have the essential character of an article of milk. View "Arko Foods Int'l v. United States" on Justia Law

The district court dismissed a complaint asserting breach of contract, breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of a settlement agreement, promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, accounting, reformation of contract, and several types of fraud in connection with agreements for "street furniture." After extensive discussion of whether the plaintiff, a sociedad anónima formed in Uruguay, was the equivalent of a corporation formed in the U.S., and the fact that the contract called for application of the law of Spain, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that, while the defendant did not treat plaintiff well, no rule of law entitles every business to a profit on every deal. View "White Pearl Inversiones v. Cemusa, Inc." on Justia Law

The qui tam suit, brought by a former contractor for one of the defendants, alleges that defendants violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1) in connection with a sale of F-16 fighter jets to Greece, which paid for the jets with money borrowed from the United States. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. An FCA claim requires proof of an objective falsehood. There was no evidence to support allegations: that defendant lied about use of funds loaned by the U.S. to capitalize a Greek business development company; that defendant failed to disclose promptly its decision to delete a price adjustment clause from the draft contract; that defendant made misrepresentations relating to provisions concerning spare part purchases and an ill-fated "depot program;" and concerning a number of misrepresentations in two amendments to the contract. View "Yannacopoulos v. Gen. Dynamics" on Justia Law

Federal Insurance Company (FIC) sued for damage to property destroyed during the inland leg of international intermodal carriage where FIC was the subrogee of the shipper which contracted with an ocean carrier, APL Co. Ptc. Ltd. (APL), to ship goods from Singapore to Alabama. The district court ruled that a covenant not to sue in the through bill of lading required FIC to sue the carrier, APL, rather than the subcontractor. At issue was what legal regime applied to the shipment's inland leg under the through bill of lading and whether the applicable legal regime prohibited the covenant not to sue. The court held that the district court did not err by enforcing the covenant not to sue and granting summary judgment to the subcontractor where the requirements that FIC sue APL directly was valid under the Hague Rules and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 U.S.C. 30701. View "Fed. Ins. Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a resident of Nevada, negotiated an oral contract with defendant, a citizen and resident of Israel. Defendant worked for one of plaintiff's companies, a Delaware corporation with offices in Massachusetts and Israel, from 1996-2000 and claimed that the agreement entitled him to a 12 percent investment in plaintiff's casino venture. Plaintiff claimed that defendant was entitled to 12 percent of net from high-tech sector investments recommended by defendant and filed a declaratory judgment action. On remand after reversal of dismissal for forum non conveniens, the district court ruled in favor of plaintiff. The First Circuit affirmed, first holding that defendant's contacts with Massachusetts were sufficient for jurisdiction. The district court properly placed the burden of proof on defendant, the natural plaintiff who would have had the burden of proving his affirmative claim to the 12 percent option in a damages action; the burden of proof was, nonetheless, not dispositive. The record supported the finding that there was no meeting of minds on the option. View "Adelson v. Hananel" on Justia Law

A 2007 patent litigation settlement agreement included a covenant not to sue that stated that it applied to customers of the defendants, who were intended beneficiaries, and a governing law/venue provision specifying New Mexico. In September 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission alleging infringement by defendant and its U.S. distributors and filed a complaint in the Northern District of California alleging infringement of the same two patents, which issued after the settlement agreement but are continuations depending from the applications that were at issue in the settlement. The New Mexico district court entered a preliminary injunction, enforcing the forum selection clause. Plaintiff dismissed its ITC and California claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the entry of the injunction; the issues relate to and arise out of the settlement agreement district court correctly applied the factors of irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest. View "Gen. Protecht Grp., Inc. v. Leviton Mfg. Co." on Justia Law