The Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 dismissed an importer’s challenge to CBP’s liquidation of entries subject to antidumping duties. Carbon Activated, an importer of activated carbon, said the entries were improperly liquidated and should have still been subject to suspension of liquidation. It argued the deadline for filing suit ran from the date it found out about the errant liquidations four years later. But CIT, holding that as an importer Carbon Activated was required to keep tabs on the status of its entries, said the company should have seen the liquidation, filed a protest within 180 days, and challenged the denied protest. With the relevant deadlines long past, the court found it couldn’t hear the case.
Saying “meaningful competition for high-speed wired broadband is lacking,” even as the demand for “faster and better Internet” is growing, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would move to promote more broadband competition in places where it’s lacking and preserve it where it exists.
Saying “meaningful competition for high-speed wired broadband is lacking,” even as the demand for “faster and better Internet” is growing, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would move to promote more broadband competition in places where it’s lacking and preserve it where it exists.
Saying “meaningful competition for high-speed wired broadband is lacking,” even as the demand for “faster and better Internet” is growing, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would move to promote more broadband competition in places where it’s lacking and preserve it where it exists.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 2 granted an importer’s request for referral to mediation of a misclassification penalty claim, despite objections from the government. Tenacious Holdings, formerly known as Ergodyne Corp., asked for “court-annexed mediation” to settle the case. The government opposed, arguing that Tenacious had only filed the request to avoid a deadline to provide certain documents in discovery. CIT decided that there is no downside to mediation in the case, and it may be the best way to resolve the dispute given the small dollar amount at issue.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 25-31:
CBP should provide more detail on the agency's reasoning behind planned updates to an informed compliance publication (ICP) describing first sale valuation, said the American Association of Exporters and Importers in comments to the agency. AAEI is among a number of commenters that are largely critical of the agency's planned revisions to the ICP (see 14080624 and 14081416). The draft ICP includes a controversial list of documents the agency might request from industry to verify the use of first sale pricing (see 14071025).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 18-24:
A court challenge may be brewing on CBP’s controversial decision to prohibit the filing of protests to claim duty preferences under several free trade agreements, say customs lawyers. A lawsuit could soon be brought by an importer denied the ability to claim preferences by the new policy, although that would require the importer have enough money at stake to justify filing suit, said several lawyers. Another lawyer proposes that importers and trade groups band together to challenge the policy in its entirety as an illegally-issued regulation. Pressure against the change could also come from countries with agreements that are affected by the change, as well as smaller importers that make their voices heard at CBP headquarters.
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."