Samsung Electronics America will pay $2.3 million to settle with the Justice Department over allegations of providing inaccurate country of origin claims to resellers, said a DOJ news release (http://1.usa.gov/1thUGXL). The company was accused of causing “the submission of false claims for products sold on General Service Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts in violation of the Trade Agreements Act” (TAA), said the department Tuesday. “Samsung caused resellers of its products to sell items on their GSA MAS contracts in violation of the TAA by knowingly providing inaccurate information to the resellers regarding the country of origin of the goods.” The government said that “Samsung represented to the resellers, who in turn represented to federal agencies, that the specified products were made in TAA designated countries, generally Korea or Mexico, when the specified products were in fact manufactured in China, which is not a TAA designated country.” The allegations began with Robert Simmons, a former Samsung employee who made the claims under whistleblower provisions, which let the whistleblower share in any recovered money. Simmons’ share has not yet been determined, said the DOJ. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for Maryland. DOJ and Samsung noted there’s been no finding of liability related to the case. “Samsung Electronics fully cooperated with the DOJ’s investigation, and the claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only,” emailed a Samsung spokeswoman. “There has been no determination of wrongdoing by the company. We are committed to working with the government, and abiding by its regulations."
Samsung Electronics America will pay $2.3 million to settle with the Justice Department over allegations of providing inaccurate country of origin claims to resellers, the DOJ said Tuesday. The company was accused of causing “the submission of false claims for products sold on General Service Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts in violation of the Trade Agreements Act” (TAA), it said. “Samsung caused resellers of its products to sell items on their GSA MAS contracts in violation of the TAA by knowingly providing inaccurate information to the resellers regarding the country of origin of the goods.” The government said that “Samsung represented to the resellers, who in turn represented to federal agencies, that the specified products were made in TAA designated countries, generally Korea or Mexico, when the specified products were in fact manufactured in China, which is not a TAA designated country.” The allegations began with Robert Simmons, a former Samsung employee who made the claims under whistleblower provisions, which let the whistleblower share in any recovered money. Simmons’ share has not yet been determined, said the DOJ. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for Maryland. DOJ and Samsung noted there’s been no finding of liability related to the case. “Samsung Electronics fully cooperated with the DOJ’s investigation, and the claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only,” emailed a Samsung spokeswoman. “There has been no determination of wrongdoing by the company. We are committed to working with the government, and abiding by its regulations."
Samsung Electronics America will pay $2.3 million to settle with the Justice Department over allegations of providing inaccurate country of origin claims to resellers, the DOJ said in a press release. The company was accused of causing "the submission of false claims for products sold on General Service Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts in violation of the Trade Agreements Act," said the release. "Samsung caused resellers of its products to sell items on their GSA MAS contracts in violation of the TAA by knowingly providing inaccurate information to the resellers regarding the country of origin of the goods," the DOJ said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 11-17:
The top Polish agricultural official recently urged Prime Minister Janusz Piechocinski to pressure the European Union to challenge Russian agricultural sanctions at the World Trade Organization (here), but U.S. industry representatives and trade analysts say such a response is unlikely and may also jeopardize the credibility of the WTO as an apolitical institution. Russia authorized on Aug. 6 an import ban on a broad range of agricultural products from the U.S., EU, Canada, Australia and Norway, all countries that levied sanctions against Russia related to the destabilization of Ukraine since early 2014 (see 14081216).
Importers will no longer be able to use protests to claim duty preferences under free trade agreements and trade preference programs after liquidation, said CBP in a letter to ports dated Aug. 11. Instead, importers will only be able to claim duty preferences after importation through 1520(d) post-importation claims for some FTAs, and by filing post-summary corrections (PSCs) or post-entry amendments (PEAs) for all others, including preference programs like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). CBP is making the policy change to comply with recent court decisions, it said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 4-10:
The FTC could hold a de-identification workshop in the next 12 months, with a follow-up staff report, said former Consumer Protection Bureau Chief David Vladeck in an interview. Enforcement actions for breaking de-identification promises could follow in the coming years, said Vladeck, Georgetown Law professor and co-director of its Institute for Public Representation. It has been two years since the FTC privacy report, perhaps the commission’s major statement on de-identification, observers said. With research rapidly advancing in the two years since, de-identification experts told us it’s time for the FTC to step up its guidance, and possibly enforcement, role.
The FTC could hold a de-identification workshop in the next 12 months, with a follow-up staff report, said former Consumer Protection Bureau Chief David Vladeck in an interview. Enforcement actions for breaking de-identification promises could follow in the coming years, said Vladeck, Georgetown Law professor and co-director of its Institute for Public Representation. It has been two years since the FTC privacy report, perhaps the commission’s major statement on de-identification, observers said. With research rapidly advancing in the two years since, de-identification experts told us it’s time for the FTC to step up its guidance, and possibly enforcement, role.
The Eastern New York U.S. District Court on July 31 dismissed a lawsuit brought by a New England furniture store against its customs broker for gross negligence when filing entry documentation. Cardi’s Furniture said FedEx Trade Networks ignored its instructions to list a furniture wholesaler as importer of record on an entry. FedEx countered that Cardi’s was only trying to evade antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China. The court found that it didn’t have to decide, because FedEx was protected by a contract clause that limited entry-related lawsuits to 75 days after the date of liquidation.