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

Plaintiffs, domestic producers, sought distributions under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, since repealed, which directed the government to distribute collected duties to domestic producers harmed by dumping, 19 U.S.C. 1675c(a). Plaintiffs also sought to compel assessment and collection of additional anti-dumping duties, claiming that U.S. Customs has failed to collect $723 million $771 million in assessed anti-dumping duties. The U.S. Court of International Trade dismissed. Certain counts were dismissed for lack of standing on the ground that plaintiffs were not intended third-party beneficiaries of bond contracts intended to cover anti-dumping penalties. Other counts were dismissed for for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, finding alternate grounds for dismissal. The court lacked jurisdiction over claims against the sureties. Plaintiffs do not qualify as intended third-party beneficiaries. View "Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Tariff Act of 1930 provides for two types of duties on imports that injure domestic industries: antidumping duties on goods sold in the U.S. at less than fair value, 19 U.S.C. 1673, and countervailing duties to offset subsidies on goods from a foreign government (1671(a)). In the case of goods exported from market economy countries (non-NME countries), both antidumping and countervailing duties may be imposed. The U.S. Court of International Trade ordered the Department of Commerce not to impose countervailing duties on goods from China, a NME country. The Trade Court held that Commerce's 2007 interpretation of countervailing duty law as permitting the imposition of such duties was unreasonable because of the high likelihood of double counting when both countervailing duties and antidumping duties are assessed against goods from NME countries. The Federal Circuit affirmed on different grounds. In amending and reenacting countervailing duty law in 1988 and 1994, Congress legislatively ratified earlier consistent administrative and judicial interpretations that government payments cannot be characterized as subsidies in a NME context, therefore countervailing duty law does not apply to NME countries.View "GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

The company imported plasma flat panel televisions, made or assembled in Mexico, between 2003, and 2005 that were liquidated as dutiable under subheading 8528.12.72 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule at a rate of five percent. The company claimed that the televisions should be treated as duty-free under the North American Free Trade Agreement. After filing protests with United States Customs and Border Protection, the company filed in the Court of International Trade, arguing that its protest was denied or deemed denied under 19 U.S.C. 1515(a) because Customs had taken more than two years to act on its protest, or under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i). The Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, interpreting 1515(a) to impose neither automatic allowance nor automatic denial of a protest, and concluding that jurisdiction was therefore not proper under 1581(a) or (i). The Court noted that, to establish jurisdiction, the company could file for accelerated disposition under 19 U.S.C. 1515(b) and wait for a maximum of 30 days. The Federal Circuit affirmed, View "Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant, a domestic manufacturer of cast steel railway wheels, owns two secret processes for manufacturing such wheel. It uses one process at three of its domestic foundries and has licensed the other to firms with foundries in China. Unsuccessful in obtaining a license for plaintiff's process, defendant hired employees that had been trained in plaintiffs' processes and began manufacturing wheels in China for sale in the U.S. The International Trade Commission found violation of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, finding that found that the wheels were manufactured using a process developed in the U.S., protected under domestic trade secret law, and misappropriated abroad. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the wheel imports threaten to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the U.S., in violation of section 337, which covers "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles . . . into the United States." The Commission has authority to investigate and grant relief based in part on extraterritorial conduct insofar as it is necessary to protect domestic industries from injuries arising out of unfair competition in the domestic marketplace.

A manufacturer of cable connectors that are used to connect coaxial cables to electronic devices filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission asserting that the importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of certain coaxial cable connectors infringed four of its patents and therefore violated 19 U.S.C. 1337. Its 539 design patent patent issued in 2001 and describes an ornamental design for a coaxial cable connector. The Commission ruled that the company failed to satisfy the requirement of showing that a "domestic industry" exists or was being established. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The company's enforcement litigation expenses did not constitute "substantial investment in exploitation" of the 539 patent. Those costs were not sufficiently related to licensing. The company has no formal licensing program and the litigation opponent was its only licensee.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection set duty rates on motocross jerseys, pants, and motorcycle jackets imported by plaintiff, classifying the items as apparel under chapters 61 and 62 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, rather than as sports equipment, as argued by plaintiff. The Court of International Trade upheld the classification and the Federal Circuit affirmed.Considering the definition of "sports equipment" as informed and clarified by Explanatory Notes, the subject merchandise is not prima facie classifiable as sports equipment under Chapter 95.

The Department of Commerce imposed antidumping duty order on imports of frozen pangas fish fillets from Vietnam that compete with domestic catfish in the retail market. The period of review covered August 2006 through July 2007. Commerce calculates antidumping duty margins by comparing "normal value" of goods in question with their actual or constructed export price. 19 U.S.C. 1677b(a). If normal value exceeds export price, Commerce imposes a duty equivalent to the percentage difference between those two values as the dumping margin. Commerce treats Vietnam as a nonmarket economy and examines best available information from appropriate market economy countries. For the fourth administrative review of the antidumping order in this case, Commerce chose Bangladesh as the primary surrogate market economy country to use in valuing factors of production. The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's valuation of whole pangas fish and choice of data in making its calculation. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Valuation of whole pangas fish was supported by substantial evidence and Commerce's refusal to make a ministerial correction was not reversible error when the alleged mistake was discoverable during earlier proceedings but was not pointed out during the period specified by regulation.

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.

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.

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.