In the third new shipper review of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (covering the period August 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008 and producers Hiep Thanh Seafood Joint Stock Company and Asia Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock Company), the International Trade Administration determined that sales to a Mexican customer of Hiep Thanh stayed in the U.S. and should be counted as U.S. sales. The Mexican customer had trans-shipped some, but not all, of its purchases to Mexico, but Hiep Thanh claimed no knowledge of the U.S. destination. The Court of International Trade faulted the ITA for “too many internal inconsistencies and unexplained conclusions,” and in a new remand, it again ordered the agency to summarize the sales more clearly, and suggested the ITA provide an interpretation for the phrase “exportation.” (Slip Op. 11-74, dated 06/23/11)

Italian producer/exporter Schaeffler Italia S.R.L. (with Schaeffler Group USA Inc.) failed at the Court of International Trade in an attempt to overturn the final results of the May 2007 -- April 2008 AD administrative review of ball bearings from Italy, in which the International Trade Administration assigned it a 15.10% AD duty rate based solely on the margin results of SKF Industrie S.p.A./Somecat S.p.A, the only other respondent in the review.

Domestic and foreign producers both contested the June 2007 - May 2008 AD administrative review results for silicon metal from China. U.S. producer Globe Metallurgical Inc. argued that the International Trade Administration should: 1) reduce U.S. prices in the dumping margin calculation to account for export and value added taxes in China; 2) use invoice dates, not entry dates, to define U.S. sales, and 3) use coking rather than non-coking coal values in input costs. Chinese producers Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. and Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry Company, Ltd. argued that the ITA should not use an allegedly distressed or “sick” Indian surrogate company in the calculation of overhead, profit and S, G & A expense ratios, or should at least recalculate that company’s ratios to reflect an asset sale and miscellaneous income. The Court of International Trade remanded only this last issue, the surrogate company’s income and expense calculations, for further explanation, and upheld all the other contested aspects of the review.

The Court of International Trade has ruled in CBB Group, Inc., v. U.S., that its consideration of cases involving "deemed exclusions" and its ability to order relief, if warranted, is not precluded by CBP's issuance of a Seizure Notice (as it was issued after the case was brought to court) or by the prospect that adjudication of claims will involve the application of copyright law.

On June 28, 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California announced that two commercial fishermen from San Diego plead guilty to illegally fishing for albacore tuna in Mexican waters without the fishing permits required under Mexican law, in violation of the Lacey Act. Nathan Lee, Captain of the ship Two Captains, and Scott Hawkins, Captain of the ship Jody H, admitted that after leaving port in San Diego, they navigated into Mexican waters and caught approximately 800 pounds of albacore tuna. Authorities determined that the vessels were fishing over a hundred miles into Mexican waters near Guadalupe Island when they caught the tuna. Each fisherman was sentenced to a term of three years of probation, and ordered to pay a fine of $500.

In a Justice Department brochure to the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and other documents¹, DOJ explains that liability for FCPA violations includes knowing payments made through intermediaries (which can include customs agents, sales representatives, etc.) to foreign officials. Liability can also attach to pre- and post-acquisition and merger conduct, or so-called "successor liability."

The Supreme Court has reversed the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit's decision to certify a plaintiff class of about 1.5 million current or former female Wal-Mart employees, who alleged that the discretion exercised by their local supervisors over pay and promotion matters discriminated against women. The plaintiffs sought an award of injunctive and declaratory relief and backpay. Among other things, the Supreme Court held that the class was improperly certified as there were no questions of law or fact common to the class to hold together the alleged reasons for the employment decisions.

The Court of International Trade ruled in CBB Group, Inc. v. U.S. that U.S. Customs and Border Protection cannot take action to dispose of imports it found to be piratical copies that infringe a registered copyright while the case is pending, as its Seizure Notice was issued after the importer’s case was brought and the court’s jurisdiction had attached. The importer is challenging CBP’s alleged exclusion of its plush toys from entry and CBP’s deemed denial of its protest of that event.

The Court of International Trade has ruled¹ that U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not err in denying Shell's 1997 protests seeking drawback of Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) and Environmental Tax (ET) payments associated with certain petroleum products that it imported and substitute petroleum derivatives it exported in 1993 and 1994. The CIT agreed with CBP that Shell is not entitled to drawback as its protests were untimely.

The Justice Department announced on June 23, 2011 that a total of seven individuals and five corporate entities based in the U.S., France, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran have been indicted to date for their alleged roles in a conspiracy to illegally export military components for fighter jets and attack helicopters from the U.S. to Iran. The indictments are for alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Iranian Transactions Regulations, etc.