Brooklyn, New York, resident Nikolay Grigorev pleaded guilty April 30 for his role in a scheme to illicitly export electronic components from the U.S. to companies linked to the Russian military, DOJ announced.
toSearch Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer North American Interpipe and exporter Interpipe Ukraine reached a settlement with the Commerce Department in the companies' lawsuit seeking a deduction in the exporter's U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs paid in an antidumping duty proceeding. The parties agreed that within 10 days of the court entering judgment, Commerce will amend the final results of the first administrative review of the AD order on oil country tubular goods from Ukraine and set the AD margin for Interpipe Ukraine at 0.01% (Interpipe Ukraine v. United States, CIT # 22-00066).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 1 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's eighth review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly's text-only version of the opinion sent back Commerce's "determination of the review specific rate applicable to JA Solar and BYD." In a letter, Kelly gave the parties until May 8 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00219).
Southwest Airlines argued in an April 30 motion for judgment that CBP illicitly exacted Customs Passenger Processing Fees for passengers that canceled ticket purchases with the airline (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).
Importer Nutricia North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that classifying its substances used to "treat life-threatening diseases in young children" as food preparations "not elsewhere specified" as opposed to "medicaments" or items "for the use or benefit" of handicapped people would lead to the "parents of very ill children" paying higher prices for these substances. In its opening brief on April 30, Nutricia said that this isn't the result Congress intended and that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule "can and should be interpreted to avoid that result" (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
Exporter Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. responded to a host arguments from the U.S. regarding the Commerce Department's surrogate value calculations on a variety of activated carbon inputs as part of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. In a reply brief filed last week at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Carbon Activated said the Court of International Trade erred in sustaining Commerce's surrogate financial ratios and surrogate values for carbonized metal, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam and ocean freight (Carbon Activated v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).
Exporter Hyundai Steel Co. on April 26 said that the U.S. attempted to "shield itself under the blanket of" the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's 1999 decision in AK Steel v. U.S. in its bid to countervail the Port of Incheon program in South Korea. However, AK Steel is "inapposite" for the present case since it came at a time before the existing Uruguay Round Agreements Act CVD statute and, as such, didn't contemplate the provision on what constitutes a countervailable benefit (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).
A U.S. motion to reconsider a Court of International Trade decision (see 2404180041) finding that CBP defied the implicit contractual term of reasonableness in waiting eight years to demand payment under a customs bond from a surety company is "both procedurally and substantively flawed," surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. said (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).
Trade lawyers said that recent legislation expanding the statute of limitations on sanctions violations from five to 10 years comes with clear expectations: costlier and longer sanctions investigations.