The International Trade Administration is proposing changes to its regulations governing extensions of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. The proposed rule would only allow late submissions under “extraordinary circumstances,” and would clarify that time limit extension provisions apply to all submissions, not just factual information. Comments are due by March 18.
RichTek filed a cross-appeal with the Federal Circuit of the International Trade Commission’s Section 337 patent enforcement case on certain DC-DC controllers and products containing same (337-TA-698). In the ITC’s final determination, it levied a $620,000 fine against uPI Semiconductor for violations of a consent order. The administrative law judge had originally recommended a $750,000 fine. uPI Semiconductor filed its appeal Jan. 11.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 7-11 in case they were missed.
Marvin Furniture appealed the Court of International Trade’s dismissal of its challenge to a new shipper review of wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-570-890). The International Trade Administration rescinded the new shipper review for Marvin after it found entries of subject merchandise that predated the date of first entry listed in Marvin’s new shipper review request. Marvin argued that it had the statutory right to correct the filings, but CIT said that right only applies to information the ITA requests. Marvin, on the other hand, submitted the new shipper review request on its own accord. CIT later denied a rehearing of the case Jan. 9.
A status hearing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Feb. 7 in the case of Bartholomew Caso, 62, who pleaded not guilty last month to charges of selling unregistered securities in Preferred Spectrum Investments. Investigators for the Palm Beach (Fla.) Police Department said Caso had told investors that Preferred “purchased license applications from the Federal Communications Commission for airway frequencies."
The International Trade Commission is asking for comments by Jan. 10 on Speculative Product Design’s Dec. 26 Section 337 patent complaint on certain cases for portable electronic devices. The complaint listed the following respondents:
Auto Liq Instructions are an ITA Action, Come Under 1581(i), says CIT; Denies Dismissal of Challenge
The Court of International Trade denied the government’s motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, an action brought by Michaels Stores challenging allegedly incorrect antidumping duty assessment instructions sent to CBP by the International Trade Administration. The government argued that Michaels is challenging CBP’s action, so the suit should have been filed under 28 USC 1581(a) customs protest denial jurisdiction. CIT said Michaels was instead challenging the International Trade Administration’s action, considering that the ITA issued the instructions, and said the suit was correctly filed under 28 USC 1581(i) residual jurisdiction as a challenge of the ITA’s administration and enforcement of trade laws.
Speculative Product Design filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission Dec. 26, alleging violations of its patents related to certain cases for portable electronic devices. The complaint lists the following proposed respondents:
The sharing of client contact information, including names and address, for security verification purposes would be permissible in certain situations, said CBP in a Nov. 21 ruling. The ruling, HQ H221355, is in response to a ruling request from Alan Klestadt, a lawyer at Grunfeld, Desiderio. Klestadt, asked the agency to say whether the release of contact information to third parties for security verifications is allowed under current regulations.
The Court of International Trade ordered a customs broker to pay a $19,000 penalty for violations of several provisions of the Customs regulations, including failing to notify the importer of record when doing business with an unlicensed person; conducting business without a valid power of attorney; misclassification of entries; and failure to exercise due diligence and responsible supervision and control. The customs broker failed to respond to any of CBP’s pre-penalty notices, penalty notices, and final demands for payments, and did not respond to any notices or motions in this case, so was declared to be in default. As the defendant was in default, CIT took all of CBP’s factual allegations as true, and granted CBP’s motion to collect the penalties.