DOJ last week announced its "first-ever criminal resolution" involving a company that violated sanctions by facilitating the sale and transport of Iranian oil. The agency said the cargo -- more than 980,000 barrels of Iranian oil that was allegedly shipped by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps -- is now the subject of a civil forfeiture action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The forfeiture complaint alleges the oil is "subject to forfeiture based on U.S. terrorism and money laundering statutes," DOJ said Sept. 8.
Exporters China Manufacturer Alliance and Double Coin Holdings will appeal a July Court of International Trade opinion upholding the Commerce Department's decision to assign Double Coin the 105.31% China-wide dumping rate in an administrative review of the AD order on off-the-road tires from China. Per the notice of appeal, the companies will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the case, the trade court said that the decision comports with the court's past decision finding that Double Coin did not rebut the presumption of Chinese state control over its export activities (see 2307200020) (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, CIT # 15-00124).
Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp., along with eight of its Zhuhai-based subsidiaries, opposed the U.S.'s motion to extend the time to file a response to their request for a preliminary injunction in a case against their addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List. Ninestar said the government, in asking for a total of 62 more days, failed to show "good cause" for needing a delay to address "even one element of the preliminary injunction test" (Ninestar Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The U.S. and defendants led by importer Precision Cable Assemblies settled a False Claims Act case on allegedly underreported imports of wire harness assemblies. The suit was originally brought by Travis Grob, former vice president of operations at the Wisconsin-based Precision Cable Assemblies, as a qui tam action, giving Grob a cut of the settlement (United States v. Precision Cable Assemblies, E.D. Wis. # 22-00570).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 ordered parties to answer whether there are any outstanding questions of fact in a customs spat on GoPro Hero camera housings. Judge Timothy Reif wants the issue resolved to see if the case is "ripe for summary judgment."
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. asked for a stay of a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on an Enforce and Protect Act investigation on the alleged transshipment of Chinese xanthan gum via India. The government said the case should be suspended until the Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. matter is resolved (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-1078, -1081).
The federal government opposed referral of a customs case to mediation since the proper classification of the product in question -- The Comfy blanket sweatshirt -- "is not of the type that is likely to be resolved through mediation." Filing its opposition to importer Cozy Comfort's motion for a postassignment conference to explore mediation at the Court of International Trade, the U.S. said mediation would not be beneficial, adding that the proceeding is "not a complex case" (Cozy Comfort Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).
The Commerce Department erred by not removing countervailing duty costs from the prices used to establish export price and constructed export price in the 2021 review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada, petitioner Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations argued (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 23-00189).
The government "completely" misinterpreted industry abstracts it relied on justify the Commerce Department's classification of backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs as "sheets" and not "film" for Risen Energy's surrogate values in an antidumping duty review on solar cells from China, Risen argued in a Sept. 7 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).