Samsung withdrew its European application to register “HDR10" as a trademark Aug. 16, weeks after the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), acting on an opposition letter from LG Electronics, ruled the application “not eligible,” show documents posted at the agency’s website (login required). Samsung’s withdrawal of the application came roughly two weeks before the opening of the IFA show, where HDR10 is expected to get prominent mention among exhibitors of the many high-dynamic-range TVs that likely will be on display at the Messe Berlin fairgrounds.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 23 ordered a Texas company and its owner to pay a penalty for negligent misstatements on import documentation, though at a level far below what the government requested. Neither Deladiep or its owner and sole corporate officer John Delatorre appeared in court to defend themselves, but CIT nonetheless cut the penalty by 80 percent to $17,548.12, finding the violation of 19 USC 1592 did not warrant the $87,740.60 maximum.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 14-20:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Aug. 14-18 in case they were missed.
CBP posted draft recommendations from the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) e-commerce working group on Section 321 entries ahead of the COAC meeting on Aug. 23 in San Diego. The recommendations "are intended to improve the import process from a facilitation and enforcement perspective for section 321-eligible shipments across all modes of transportation," the working group said. CBP issued an interim final rule on the de minimis level last year and raised a number of questions on the role of other agencies' requirements for such shipments (see 1608250029).
M&B Metals, which filed antidumping duty evasion allegations against Eastern Trading NY, is pleased with CBP's findings in the agency's final determination (see 1708170027), M&B President Milton Magnus said in an email. "CBP did an excellent job during the preliminary phase of the investigation, making on-site visits, and communicating with the importer," he said. "Then during the final stage, they did an outstanding job of connecting the dots, and tracing the shipments from China to Thailand and then to the US. I believe CBP has always been anxious to enforce our Dumping Order, but without the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA), there was not a process in which to work. EAPA is extremely important to ensure that our Dumping Orders are enforced; giving our company and our employees the relief we worked so hard to obtain." Magnus also praised the work of the company's lawyers in the case, Frederick Waite and Kimberly Young at Vorys.
CBP's Trade Remedy and Law Enforcement Directorate is investigating several new cases of alleged antidumping duty evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) evasion enforcement process (see 1608190014), CBP said in an Aug. 17 news release. The agency announced new investigations into possible evasion of AD duty orders on wooden bedroom furniture (WBF) and steel wire hangers. CBP also announced an investigation into alleged evasion of a diamond sawblades AD order. The Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition, which filed the allegation, previously announced the investigation (see 1706280035).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 7-13:
A surety is on the hook for $2.2 million in uncollected duties even though the underlying bonds had missing information and errors, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Aug. 10. Hartford Fire Insurance argued the bonds violated customs regulations and were not enforceable contracts, but the court found those errors didn’t invalidate them, especially given that Hartford accepted premiums and submitted the bonds to CBP.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy does not protect importers from Section 592 penalty claims filed by the government at the Court of International Trade, CIT said in a decision issued Aug. 10. While judicial claims are generally paused during bankruptcy to give the debtor a chance to repay debts or reorganize, Section 592 penalty claims are exempt from those protections because they are meant to protect public welfare and serve a public policy purpose, CIT said.