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.

In the antidumping duty administrative review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India for the period December 2005 through November 2006, the International Trade Administration granted an adjustment to U.S. price to Indian producer Essar Steel Limited for import duties which the company claimed were waived under an Indian Government program to encourage exports. However, U.S. producers United States Steel Corporation and Nucor Corporation argued to the Court of International Trade that Essar had failed to prove that it had qualified for the rebate. Conceding it had made erroneous assumptions, the ITA requested a voluntary remand to reconsider the duty drawback adjustment, and the CIT issued remand instructions accordingly. (Slip Op 11-66, dated 06/14/11)

Thai steel producer Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company Limited contested the Court of International Trade’s decision upholding the International Trade Administration’s actions in reinstating the AD duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand for Sahaviriya after the company had earned partial revocation status. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s decision, finding that the ITA had reasonably interpreted and exercised its revocation and changed circumstances review authority. (Decision 2010-1480, dated 06/17/11)

The following are details of a June 16, 2011 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (here) that overturned a lower court ruling and arguments by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on the classification of certain “CamelBak” back-mounted packs. CAFC agreed with Camelbak that its packs are made up of two different components and are "composite goods" that should be classified by the essential character test, because the two applicable subheadings refer to only part of the subject articles.

On June 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled the lower court and agreed with CamelBak Products LLC that its back-mounted packs are made up of two different components (a hydration component and a storage component), and are "composite goods" that should be classified by the essential character test, because the two applicable subheadings refer to only part of the subject articles. CBP had argued, and the lower court had affirmed, that the items were not "composite goods" and that a single tariff provision applied to the articles in their entirety.

The Court of International Trade has ruled in U.S. v. Trek Leather Inc., and Harish Shadadpuri that an importer of record along with its sole shareholder committed gross negligence by consistently failing to include the cost of fabric assists in the price actually paid or payable in their entry documents for men's suits imported into the U.S. The defendants were also found liable for unpaid customs duties and civil penalties, plus interest.

The Supreme Court has affirmed a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judgment that Microsoft Corporation willfully infringed a patent held by i4i Limited Partnership and Infrastructures for Information Inc. (collectively i4i), which claims an improved method for editing computer documents.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the International Trade Commission's final determination that the importation and sale of certain silicon microphone packages by MEMS Technology Berhad (MemsTech) violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC 1337) by infringing the asserted claims of two patents owned by Knowles Electronics LLC. The patents at issue pertained to microelectromechanical system (MEMS) microphone packages, which are used in a variety of consumer electronic devices, including mobile phones.

For the antidumping duty administrative review of certain pasta from Italy for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, the Court of International Trade previously granted a request from the International Trade Administration for a voluntary remand to reconsider whether accounting expenses of Italian producer Pasta Zara SpA were direct or indirect expenses. The court also ordered the ITA to reconsider whether all home market sales, whether to independent retailers or large discount chains, were in fact at a single level of trade, as the ITA claimed.

The patent infringement cases brought by Tessera Inc., over alleged infringements of minimized semiconductor chip encapsulation technologies it owns and licenses, met a further setback at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The company ‘s unsuccessful appeal followed determinations by a review panel at the International Trade Commission that for some of the alleged infringements, there was no section 337 violation, and for the remainder, the patent right did not extend to later re-sales.