A recent petition filed with the Federal Trade Commission asks the agency to issue regulations that would allow it to hit first-time violators of Made in USA requirements with monetary penalties. TruthinAdvertising.org says the lack of any regulations on Made in USA claims means unscrupulous companies are able to falsely advertise with impunity, harming consumers and other companies that are honest about their products’ origins.

EchoStar appealed the U.S. Court of International Trade decision upholding denial by Customs and Border Protection of more than $276,000 in drawback claims from a video technology importer and exporter as untimely. The CIT said in June (see 1906180069) the date of filing was when a complete paper claim was submitted, not the electronic summary. The appellant/petitioner's brief is due Oct. 21, said docket 19-2299 for EchoStar v. U.S. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As of Friday, beyond a docketing notice (in Pacer), no additional documents were in that docket (in Pacer).

EchoStar appealed the U.S. Court of International Trade decision upholding denial by Customs and Border Protection of more than $276,000 in drawback claims from a video technology importer and exporter as untimely. The CIT said in June (see 1906180069) the date of filing was when a complete paper claim was submitted, not the electronic summary. The appellant/petitioner's brief is due Oct. 21, said docket 19-2299 for EchoStar v. U.S. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As of Friday, beyond a docketing notice (in Pacer), no additional documents were in that docket (in Pacer).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 26 - Sept. 1:

International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Aug. 26-30 in case they were missed.

EchoStar appealed the U.S. Court of International Trade decision upholding denial by Customs and Border Protection of more than $276,000 in drawback claims from a video technology importer and exporter as untimely. The CIT said in June (see 1906180069) the date of filing was when a complete paper claim was submitted, not the electronic summary. The appellant/petitioner's brief is due Oct. 21, said docket 19-2299 for EchoStar v. U.S. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As of Friday, beyond a docketing notice (in Pacer), no additional documents were in that docket (in Pacer).

A recent change to the customs regulations that limits the use of substitution drawback on excise taxes is supported by the plain language of the law, and merely closes a “double drawback” loophole that CBP San Francisco erroneously opened in 2004 when it misinterpreted that legal language as it was first enacted, Justice Department lawyers said in a brief filed Aug. 28 with the Court of International Trade.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 19-25:

International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Aug. 19-23 in case they were missed.

A New Jersey federal court judge dismissed consumer fraud claims Tuesday in an amended complaint (in Pacer) that alleges Samsung and Sony smart TVs spied on the private viewing habits of their owners. U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo let the case go forward on allegations that the TV makers may have captured more than just "static identifiers" such as IP addresses and ZIP codes, in possible violation of the Wiretap Act. Plaintiffs "have adequately alleged that their 'content' was intercepted," said the judge. On the fraud claim, New Jersey plaintiff Patricia Cauley claimed she wouldn't have purchased her Samsung smart TV -- or would have paid substantially less for it -- if she had known the company would collect her personal and viewing data. The jurist said Cauley failed to demonstrate that her loss was “quantifiable or measurable,” and the claim was dismissed. The findings were similar for Florida resident Thomas White, who filed a consumer fraud claim under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act over one Sony and two Samsung smart TVs. White alleged the smart TVs he bought had a tracking feature that “impaired the value of the televisions.” Plaintiffs must be able to calculate or quantify an ascertainable loss but did not do so, the judge wrote.