Two importers each will pay seven-figure sums to settle False Claims Act lawsuits related to the undervaluation of their customs entries and underpayment of duties, DOJ said Aug. 11. Apparel importer Luchiano Visconti and its manager, Sasha Hourizadeh, will together pay $3.64 million to settle allegations they sent fraudulent invoices to their customs broker that understated the actual price paid. In a separate settlement, Eos Energy Storage will pay $1.02 million to resolve allegations that it failed to declare assists and other additions to transaction value.

Remand redeterminations recently submitted by the Commerce Department in two related cases are not final agency decisions that can be sustained by the Court of International Trade, and doing so would circumvent the trade court’s judicial review process, CIT said in a pair of Aug. 10 decisions rejecting the remand results in a case involving a scope ruling on door thresholds.

CBP has no basis to consider a country’s non-market economy status when determining whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Aug. 11 in a widely anticipated decision involving cookware imported by Meyer.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Commerce Department continued to apply countervailing duties for China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program to two Chinese wooden cabinet exporters in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade Aug. 5, despite a court-ordered effort by the agency to validate non-use of the program without information withheld by the Chinese government.

The Court of International Trade issued a decision Aug. 8 remanding surrogate value calculations in an antidumping duty review on activated carbon from China to the Commerce Department for reconsideration or explanation. While CIT sustained five of the seven surrogate selections at issue in the case, it found the agency failed to explain its surrogate value selection of a dataset for carbonized material and its pick of a company for determining surrogate financial ratios.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 sustained the Commerce’s Department’s third remand results in an case that revolved around the constructed value calculation in an antidumping duty administrative review on steel nails from Oman. The trade court found Commerce justified its switch on remand between surrogate companies, despite calls from the exporter under review to use a different company.

CBP affirmed a February determination that found substantial evidence of evasion of countervailing duties and antidumping duties on wooden cabinets from China by two importers, after a review of the case, according to a recently released notice.

The U.S.'s "unreasonable delay" in asserting claims seeking to collect antiduming duties on entries of canned mushrooms brought in between 2000 and 2001 warrants dismissal of its case at the Court of International Trade seeking the duties, surety company American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC) argued in an Aug. 1 reply brief. Responding to the court's request for more briefing over AHAC's affirmative defense and claims of prejudice, the surety company said that it has not been able to actually provide significant evidence of actual harm "despite best efforts," but that the case should be decided on statute of limitations grounds (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).

The Commerce Department cannot deduct Section 232 national security duties from antidumping duty respondent Borusan Mannesman's U.S. price because the duties are remedial, temporary and deducting them would count as a double remedy, making them unlike normal customs duties, the respondent argued. Filing a reply brief Aug. 4 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the respondent said Commerce failed to conduct a "fulsome analysis" of whether the Section 232 duties are more like normal customs duties or to special duties, like Section 201 safeguards, and instead "confined its analysis" to finding distinctions between Section 232 and Section 201 duties. The agency also failed to acknowledge the "legal and constitutional distinction between regular duties imposed by Congress" and special duties imposed by the president (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).