Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Trek was the importer of record for 72 entries of men’s suits in 2004. Mercantile was the consignee. Shadadpuri is president and sole shareholder of Trek, and a 40% shareholder of Mercantile. Trek and Mercantile provided fabric “assists” to manufacturers outside the U. S. (items incorporated in the imported merchandise, 19 U.S.C. 1401a(h)(1)(A)(i)). Customs determined that the entry documentation failed to include the cost of the fabric assists in the price paid for the suits which lowered the amount of duty payable by Trek. Shadadpuri had previously failed to include assists in entry declarations when acting on behalf of a corporate importer. The Court of International Trade found Shadadpuri liable for gross negligence in connection with the entry of imported merchandise and imposed penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592(c)(2). The Federal Circuit reversed the penalty, but, on rehearing en banc, affirmed. What Shadadpuri did comes within the commonsense understanding of the “introduce” language of the statute. While suits invoiced to one company were in transit, he “caused the shipments of the imported merchandise to be transferred” to Trek. Himself and through his aides, he sent invoices to the customs broker for use in completing the entry filings to secure release of the merchandise into U.S. commerce. Applying the statute to Shadadpuri does not require piercing the corporate veil. View "United States v. Trek Leather, Inc." on Justia Law

CPZ imported tapered roller bearings by selling them to an unaffiliated U.S. importer, which then sold them to CPZ’s U.S. affiliate which resold them to unaffiliated U.S. customers. The Department of Commerce requested that CPZ identify whether its sales were export price (EP) sales or constructed export price (CEP) sales for purposes of calculating CPZ’s antidumping duty margin. CPZ provided CEP data. It did not provide EP data. Timken, an intervening domestic bearing producer, urged Commerce to calculate CPZ’s margin on an EP basis. Commerce did not require CPZ to submit the EP data, but calculated CPZ’s margin on a CEP basis, using the data provided. After Commerce issued the Preliminary Results, Timken again submitted comments. In its Final Results, Commerce changed course and calculated CPZ’s margin on an EP basis, using limited EP data previously provided, relating to a small subset of the imported bearings. Commerce calculated a margin of 92.84%. The Court of International Trade remanded. On remand, Commerce twice requested EP data. CPZ responded that it had been sold and the new owners had not maintained that data. After a second remand, under protest, Commerce calculated a 6.52% margin using the CEP data, without applying adverse facts available. The Court of International Trade affirmed. The Federal Circuit vacated. Commerce’s application of adverse facts available in its First Remand Redetermination was supported by substantial evidence; the Trade Court should reinstate Commerce’s application of adverse facts available and its calculation of CPZ’s margin in its First Remand Redetermination. View "Peer Bearing Co. - Changshan v. United States" on Justia Law

The Department of Commerce sets cash deposit rates associated with imported goods to curb “dumping,” i.e., exporting goods far below typical market prices, 19 U.S.C. 1673e(a)(3). Commerce found that a U.S. industry was threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain cased pencils from China, imposed anti-dumping duties, and later initiated administrative reviews for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. During the 2008-2009 review period, Michaels imported cased pencils manufactured by three producers in China and exported by three different exporters. The producers participated in the review process, but two withdrew. None of the Chinese exporters participated. The producers’ rates were established for the two review periods. Commerce assigned Michaels’ exporters a country-wide anti-dumping cash deposit rate, as opposed to lower rates obtained by the pencils’ producers. Michaels argued that it was entitled to the producer rate based on 19 C.F.R. 351.107(b)(2), which states that “if the Secretary has not established previously a combination cash deposit rate . . . for the exporter and producer in question or a noncombination rate for the exporter in question, the Secretary will apply the cash deposit rate established for the producer.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, reasoning that section 351.107(b)(2) is informed by section 351.107(d), which establishes an initial noncombination rate for all producers and exporters in nonmarket economy countries. View "Michaels Stores, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Department of Commerce conducted new shipper review, at Sea-line’s request, on an outstanding 1994 antidumping order on fresh garlic imports from China. New shipper review covers an importer or producer that was not subject to an initial antidumping duty investigation and thinks it is entitled to an individual anti-dumping duty margin, 19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2), and covers imports after the review period for the initial investigation. Commerce conducted Sea-line’s review for the period of November 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009. Because China is a non-market economy, Commerce used surrogate values from a comparable market economy (India), relying on price data from the APMC Bulletin, which reports daily prices in India for garlic bulbs of various “grades.” Sea-line reported bulbs in the grade Super A category. The APMC Bulletin did not report any prices for grade Super A bulbs for the period of review. Commerce averaged the closest available data points for grade Super A garlic, which was for November 2007 through April 2008 and applied the Wholesale Price Index for India published by the International Monetary Fund. Commerce calculated a “surrogate financial ratio” for general expenses, overhead, and profit by averaging financial statements of two Indian tea producers, reasoning that "tea, rice, and vegetable processing is similar to garlic because each is not highly processed or preserved prior to sale.” The Court of International Trade affirmed the final results and assignment of an antidumping duty. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the results were based on substantial evidence.View "Qingdao Sea-line Trading Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

GRK’s R4 Screws, RT Composite Trim Head Screws, and Fin/Trim Head Screws are made with corrosion-resistant case-hardened steel and are marketed for use as building material fasteners. R4 screws have a flat self- countersinking head designed to cut away at the top layer of the material as the screw is driven into place. RT and Fin/Trim screws are recommended for fine carpentry and trim applications, and have much smaller heads, designed to prevent cracking and splitting of the target material. GRK imported the subject screws between January and August 2008. U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified the screws at liquidation under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. (HTSUS) subheading 7318.12.00, “other wood screws,” which carries a 12.5% ad valorem duty. GRK protested, claiming that the screws should instead have been classified under subheading 7318.14.10, “self-tapping screws,” subject to a 6.2% ad valorem duty. Customs denied GRK’s protests. The Court of International Trade noted that HTSUS does not specifically define either subheading and agreed with GRK that the items were properly classified as “self-tapping screws.” The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, reasoning that the Trade Court refused to consider the use of the screws at any step of determining the classification. View "GRK Canada, Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

C.H. Robinson was the Customs-bonded carrier for three 2001 entries of wearing apparel from China, which entered the U.S. as Transportation & Exportation (T&E) entries, but were never exported and are “missing.” A Mexican company was the importer of record and consignee of the merchandise; the T&E entry documents indicated that the merchandise was to be delivered to Laredo, Texas, for exportation to Mexico. The merchandise left Los Angeles, but it is not clear what happened after that. Customs never inspected or took possession of the subject merchandise at the Port of Laredo. During an audit, Customs contacted Mexican Customs authorities and learned that stamped importation forms were false. Customs issued notices of liquidated damages claims against C.H. Robinson’s custodial bond, charging misdelivery. Based upon mitigation guidelines, Customs reduced the amount of liquidated damages from $75,000. C.H. Robinson paid $57,212 in 2004 and sought a refund. Customs also made a demand, under 19 U.S.C. 1553, for payment of $106,407.86, plus interest, for duties, taxes, and fees on the entries. C.H. Robinson did not protest the demand or pay the duties, and its challenge to Commerce’s assessment of liquidated damages remained stayed. The Court of International Trade held C.H. Robinson liable for duties, taxes, and fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "United States v. C.H. Robinson Co." on Justia Law

Align’s Invisalign System, an alternative to conventional braces, uses a series of clear dental aligners that are worn sequentially over time to adjust the position of a patient’s teeth. The aligners must be custom-designed for the patient’s unique teeth. Align’s asserted patents are directed to methods and treatment plans using digital data sets. In 2005, Align’s founder and former CEO founded OrthoClear and used former Align employees to manufacture dental aligners. Align filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging that OrthoClear violated 19 U.S.C. 1337 by importing, selling for importation, or selling within the U.S., aligners that infringe Align’s patents, and by misappropriating Align’s trade secrets. A 2006 settlement required OrthoClear to assign its entire intellectual property portfolio to Align. The Commission entered the Consent Order and terminated the investigation. Suspecting that OrthoClear and others were violating the Consent Order, Align sought an enforcement proceeding. Rather than issuing an “initial determination,” the ALJ issued an order, denied a motion to terminate and scheduled a trial. The Commission concluded that the order constituted an “initial determination,” subject to its review, reversed, and terminated the enforcement proceeding, finding that the accused digital data sets were not covered by the scope of the consent order. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the Commission erred in reviewing the order. View "Align Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Department of Commerce initiated a CVD investigation, 19 U.S.C. 1671(a), on multi-layered wood flooring from China in response to a petition from domestic producers, limiting its individual examination to companies accounting for the largest volume of imports, and selected Fine Furniture as a mandatory respondent. Commerce sent out questionnaires to analyze an allegation that the government of China subsidized the respondents’ electricity costs. Among other things, Commerce sought draft provincial price proposals for 2006 and 2008 for each province in which the mandatory respondents were located. Fine Furniture provided all of the requested information, while the government of China did not. Commerce determined that the government of China’s decision not to provide information about how electricity rates were determined for each province in which mandatory respondents were located was a failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. Accordingly, Commerce applied an adverse inference to find that the Electricity Program provided a financial contribution specific to the identified respondents. Commerce also applied adverse inferences to determine the benchmark price for electricity. The Court of International Trade held that Commerce did not apply adverse inferences against Fine Furniture, but applied adverse inferences as its method for determining the information requested from, but not provided by, the government of China. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Fine Furniture Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

Following a request from ICP, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued New York Ruling Letter D86228 classifying ICP’s white sauce as “sauces and preparations therefor” under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 2103.90.9060 Years later, Customs issued a notice of action reclassifying all pending and future entries of white sauce as “[b]utter and ... dairy spreads” under HTSUS 0405.20.3000, which increased the tariff by about 2400%. After protesting and paying duties on a single entry, ICP filed a claim in the Court of International Trade, alleging that the notice of action improperly revoked the Ruling Letter without following procedures required by 19 U.S.C. 1625(c). The court ordered Customs to reliquidate the merchandise under the “[s]auces and preparations therefor” heading required by the Ruling Letter. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Int'l Custom Prods. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the Fifth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order covering TPBI’s polyethylene retail carrier bags imported from Thailand during the 2008–2009 review period, 19 U.S.C. 1673. Commerce calculated the normal value of TPBI’s merchandise based on a constructed value, having determined that the sales in the exporting country of the foreign like product had been made at prices below the cost of production. Commerce found that TPBI’s methodology did not reasonably reflect actual costs because it resulted in products with few or minor physical differences being assigned significantly different costs of manufacturing. Commerce disregarded the below-cost sales. The Court of International Trade affirmed. Finding Commerce’s determinations supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, the Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Thai Plastic Bags Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law