The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 17-23:
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 order gave the U.S. a one-week deadline extension to Nov. 4 in the Section 301 cases to file its response to the plaintiffs’ comments on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative remand results. The government argued in its motion for extension that good cause exists for the delay (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
The U.S. Court of International Trade granted DOJ's motion for a one-week deadline extension to Nov. 4 in the Section 301 cases to file its response to the plaintiffs’ comments on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative remand results, said an order Monday in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Good cause exists for the one-week delay, said DOJ. Though “we have been working diligently” to complete the response by the original deadline, “several logistical challenges” make it impossible to do so, said the filing. The importance of the case requires that the government’s response “must undergo a heightened level of internal review, and this review process has taken longer than anticipated,” it said. Another extenuating factor is that one of the lead DOJ attorneys, Jamie Shookman, recently sustained an injury “that impacted her ability to work on our brief,” it said. Akin Gump attorneys for lead plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products told DOJ they would not oppose the seven-day deadline extension if they could extend to Dec. 5 from Nov. 14 their own deadline for replying to the government to accommodate international travel and other court commitments, said DOJ. The court agreed to the new deadlines.
The U.S. this week charged several Chinese nationals, including Chinese government intelligence officers, for their efforts to obstruct a federal prosecution of Huawei and illegally acquire U.S. technology. In one indictment, DOJ charged two Chinese intelligence officers with trying to steal federal prosecution documents relating to the Huawei case. A second indictment charges four Chinese nationals, including three Ministry of State Security (MSS) intelligence officers, for their involvement in a “long-running intelligence campaign” to acquire sensitive U.S. technology, information and assistance.
The U.S. this week charged several Chinese nationals, including Chinese government intelligence officers, for their efforts to obstruct a federal prosecution of Huawei and illegally acquire U.S. technology. In one indictment, DOJ charged two Chinese intelligence officers with trying to steal federal prosecution documents relating to the Huawei case. A second indictment charges four Chinese nationals, including three Ministry of State Security (MSS) intelligence officers, for their involvement in a “long-running intelligence campaign” to acquire sensitive U.S. technology, information and assistance.
Public interest statements are due to the International Trade Commission by Nov. 2 in a potential Section 337 case involving certain video processing devices, according to a Federal Register notice (ITC Docket No. 3650). The notice follows an Oct. 19 complaint filed by VideoLabs, Inc., which alleged that HP imports, sells, as well as maintains and services, video recording and processing devices that infringe on three of VideoLabs's patents concerning picture coding and decoding. VideoLabs has asked the ITC to issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against HP.
It's legal for importer Keirton USA to enter marijuana-related drug paraphernalia into Washington state, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 20 opinion. Building on the trade court's similar Eteros decision, Judge Claire Kelly said Washington's repeal of past restrictions on marijuana-related drug paraphernalia constitutes an authorization of the manufacture, possession and distribution of these goods, so that importing these goods qualifies for the exemption under the Federal Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act of 1986. Kelly, like Judge Gary Katzmann in the Eteros decision, relied on the Supreme Court case Murphy v. NCAA to construe the definition of "authorization."
A September Court of International Trade decision finding that the U.S. cannot seize or forfeit imports of federally deemed "drug paraphernalia" whose delivery, possession and manufacture were made legal in Washington state may not be as applicable to other states as certain importers would like, trade lawyers told Trade Law Daily. Since the opinion rests heavily on the precise language of the Washington state law legalizing marijuana, the trade court's ruling will only make the most difference in states with a similar law, one attorney said.
It's legal for importer Keirton USA to enter marijuana-related drug paraphernalia into Washington state, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 20 opinion. Building on the trade court's similar Eteros decision, Judge Claire Kelly said Washington's repeal of past restrictions on marijuana-related drug paraphernalia constitutes an authorization of the manufacture, possession and distribution of these goods, so that importing these goods qualifies for the exemption under the Federal Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act of 1986. Kelly, like Judge Gary Katzmann in the Eteros decision, relied on the Supreme Court case Murphy v. NCAA to construe the definition of "authorization."
CBP's Denial of PSCs Establishes Jurisdiction to Impose Section 232 Exclusions, Appellants Tell CAFC
CBP's denial of plaintiff-appellant Borusan Mannesmann's post summary corrections (PSCs) and administrative refund request constitutes a protestable decision, meaning Borusan had jurisdiction to seek Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions, Borusan and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline argued in an Oct. 17 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also said that Federal Circuit precedent established that CBP's denial of a timely request for a refund of previously paid duties can constitute a protestable decision, and while these precedential opinions do not concern unliquidated entries as is the case with Borusan, there is nothing limiting these decisions (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).