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

Del Monte imports products consisting of tuna, with sauce, in a sealed microwaveable package. The tuna accounts for 80 percent of the total product weight; the sauce accounts for 20 percent. U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified two of the three flavors under subheading 1604.14.10 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule, which covers tuna packed “in oil,” because their sauces include some oil. Customs appraised the goods based on the price that Del Monte paid its supplier of importation, without adjusting for $1.5 million that Del Monte later received from its supplier after negotiations over the accuracy of the amount originally paid. The Court of International Trade held that Del Monte’s goods were properly classified and valued. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Fish products in which the only oil is added as part of a liquid substance introduced at the time of packing are considered “in oil” even if the liquid does not consist entirely of oil; there is no minimum threshold for the amount of oil that must be present. Imported merchandise must be appraised, when possible, based on its “transaction value,” 19 U.S.C. 1401a(a)(1), “the price actually paid or payable for the merchandise when sold for exportation,” regardless of subsequent rebates. View "Del Monte Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 1996, the Department of Commerce determined that certain pasta products from Italy were being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value and published an order imposing antidumping duties. Several years later, Commerce conducted its ninth administrative review of that order, covering the period of July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005 and arrived at an antidumping duty margin of 18.18 percent for Atar. Commerce ordinarily compares the export price of the subject merchandise with the price of like products sold in the exporter’s home market or in a representative third country, 19 U.S.C. 1677(35), 1677b(a)(1)(A)–(C). Commerce determined that it could not assess normal value by reference to Atar’s proffered home-market or third-country sales data, so it approximated the normal value of Atar’s subject goods using a constructed value approach. The Court of International Trade rejected Commerce’s calculations. After several remands, Commerce revised its profit cap determination, eventually including above- and below-cost sales made by profitable and unprofitable respondents in the prior administrative review. The trade court then sustained Commerce’s duty calculations. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that Commerce acted reasonably in excluding below-cost sales data from the prior administrative review when calculating the constructed value profit cap applicable to Atar’s subject merchandise. View "Atar S.R.L v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2003, pursuant to a petition by U.S. furniture manufacturers and labor unions, the Department of Commerce initiated an antidumping investigation of Chinese wooden bedroom furniture manufacturers. The International Trade Commission (ITC) investigated whether the domestic industry had been materially injured and distributed questionnaires to all known domestic wooden bedroom furniture producers. Producers are required by law to respond. One question asked, “Do you support or oppose the petition?” and gave the choices: “Support,” “Oppose,” or “Take no position.” Ashley answered “Oppose;” Ethan Allen answered “Take no position.” The ITC issued an antidumping duty order. Commerce directed U.S. Customs to collect duties on entries of Chinese wooden bedroom furniture. The ITC prepared a list of Affected Domestic Producers eligible to receive a share of the duties, 19 U.S.C. 1675c(a), (d)(1) (Byrd Amendment). The ITC did not include Ashley and Ethan Allen, who sued. The Byrd Amendment has been repealed;t they sought their share from prior years. The Court of International Trade dismissed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that “this framework may create incentives for domestic producers to indicate support for a petition even when they may believe that an antidumping duty order is unwarranted, it is not our task to pass on Congress’s wisdom in enacting the Byrd Amendment.” View "Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Itochu asked the U.S. Department of Commerce to act under 19 U.S.C. 1675(b) to revoke part of an antidumping-duty order applicable to imported steel nails. Before Commerce issued its preliminary determination, Itochu submitted comments and provided legal authority to urge that the requested partial revocation take effect at an early specified date. Commerce rejected that position in its preliminary ruling and generally invited interested parties to comment. Itochu did not avail itself of that opportunity. In its final ruling, Commerce adopted the partial revocation, which the domestic industry did not oppose, but with the later effective date. When Itochu challenged the effective-date determination, the U.S.s Court of International Trade declined to address the merits, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 28 U.S.C. 2637(d), because Itochu had failed to resubmit, after the preliminary ruling, the comments it had submitted earlier. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that in these circumstances, requiring exhaustion served no discernible practical purpose and resulting delay would have risked harm to Itochu. View "Itochu Bldg. Prods. v. United States" on Justia Law

MPS and O2 Micro compete in the market for integrated circuit products that control LCD and LED lighting. O2 had filed several prior patent infringement claims against MPS and its customers. MPS sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity with respect to four related O2 patents (the 519 family). After O2 learned of the suit, O2 filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC), under section 337 of the Tariff Act, against MPS and its customers, claiming that their imports infringed the 519 patents and the 382 patent. In the court action, O2 counterclaimed for infringement, added MPS customers, as counter-defendants, and moved to stay proceedings. The court denied the motion. O2 later withdrew assertions concerning the 519 family from both proceedings and covenanted not to sue MPS or its customers for infringement of those patents. O2 insisted that the 382 patent was entitled to a 1998 conception date and filed verified interrogatories attesting to that. O2’s story ultimately unraveled and it “sought to mask its proffer of false testimony.” Ultimately, the court ruled that the earliest invention date was 1999: O2 signed a covenant not to sue with respect to the patent. The district court later dismissed all claims with prejudice and granted fees and costs, based on an exceptional case finding on O2’s “vexatious litigation strategy, litigation misconduct and unprofessional behavior.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int'l, Ltd." on Justia Law

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 a number of fabric “assists” to manufacturers outside the U. S. An assist refers to “materials, components, parts, and similar 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 assessment, holding that corporate officers of an “importer of record” are not directly liable for penalties. Shadadpuri is not liable, absent piercing Trek’s corporate veil to establish that Shadadpuri was the actual importer of record, as defined by statute, or establishing that Shadadpuri is liable for fraud or as an aider and abettor. View "United States v. Trek Leather, Inc." on Justia Law

La Crosse imports electronic devices that measure atmospheric conditions and display the information alongside time and date. The devices use wireless instruments that measure outdoor conditions and a base unit that measure indoor conditions and have an LCD display, a barometer, and a microprocessor. The microprocessor uses an algorithm to analyze historical barometric measurements to provide a forecast of whether the weather will improve or deteriorate, is displayed as an arrow, a series of icons, or an image of a boy whose clothes indicate the type of weather predicted. U.S. Customs initially classified all the devices as “other clocks” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) c9105.91.40. The U.S. Court of International Trade reclassified many of the devices according to three general categories. The court classified Weather Station models under HTSUS subheading 9025.80.10 (including thermometers, barometers, hygrometers, and combinations of these instruments); Professional models under subheading 9015.80.80 (including certain “meteorological ... instruments and appliances”); and Clock models under subheading 9105.91.40 (certain clocks). The Federal Circuit reversed as to the Weather Station and Clock models and ordered classification under HTSUS subheading 9015.80.80. View "La Crosse Tech., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Court of International Trade rejected the Department of Commerce’s interpretation of an antidumping order, imposed under 19 U.S.C. 1673a(b), on nails from the People’s Republic of China. The Trade Court held that nails included in certain household tool kits imported by Target were subject to the order. The Federal Circuit vacated, noting that whether a “mixed media” item (a tool kit) is subject to an antidumping order that covers included merchandise is not addressed in the regulations. Commerce has historically treated the answer as depending on whether the mixed media item is to be treated as a single, unitary item, or a mere aggregation of separate items. Remand is necessary for Commerce to revisit its mixed media determination in light of a statutory requirement that any implicit mixed media exception to the literal scope of the order be based on preexisting public sources. Problems presented by this case could be avoided if Commerce identified, in its antidumping orders or in prospective regulations, factors that it will consider in resolving mixed media and other cases. View "Mid Cont't Nail Corp v. United States" on Justia Law

For more than 20 years, members of the U.S. softwood lumber industry accused Canada of unfairly subsidizing production of softwood lumber, resulting in a substantial amount of litigation. The U.S. and Canada have entered into several agreements intended to resolve the dispute. Under a 2006 agreement, the Department of Commerce agreed to refund duties collected on Canadian lumber after May, 2002, approximately $5 billion. Canada agreed that for seven years after the 2006 effective date, it would impose export taxes on certain softwood lumber exported to the U.S. and distribute $1 billion to U.S. groups, half to be distributed to benefit members of the Coalition. Plaintiffs are U.S. softwood lumber producers who are not members of the Coalition. Plaintiffs sued, asserting that by agreeing to a distribution that did not include all members of the domestic softwood lumber industry, the U.S. Trade Representative acted outside of its authority; that the distribution violates equal protection; and that the USTR wrongfully delegated to the Coalition the function of determining how much each affected domestic producer should receive. On remand, the Trade Court dismissed three counts for failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that plaintiffs failed to allege facts to make plausible any of its claims. View "Almond Bros. Lumber Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Shapiro, a U.S. affiliate of Aifudi, imports laminated woven sacks manufactured and exported by Aifudi in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In 2008, the Department of Commerce found that those sacks were being sold in the U.S. at less than fair market value (19 U.S.C. 1673) and issued an antidumping-duty order. Aifudi participated, submitted verified information, and demonstrated that it was not subject to government control. Aifudi was assigned a “separate rate” of 64.28 percent, not the default PRC-wide rate. In a later review, conducted at Aifudi’s request, of the amount of the duty for a defined period, Commerce considered Aifudi’s eligibility for a company-specific rate for that period. Commerce published preliminary results, favorable to Aifudi. Aifudi immediately withdrew from the proceeding and removed its confidential information from the record. Commerce concluded that the record no longer contained enough verifiable information to prove that Aifudi was not subject to government control and assigned Aifudi the default PRC-wide rate for the review period. Shapiro appealed. The Court of International Trade upheld the decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding that Commerce’s decision to apply the PRC-wide rate to Aifudi was supported by substantial evidence and did not violate any law. View "AMS Assocs., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law