California-based electronic design automation firm Cadence will pay more than $140 million in combined civil fines, criminal penalties and forfeitures after the U.S. said it violated export controls against China. The company pleaded guilty to illegally exporting EDA hardware, software and semiconductor design intellectual property technology to Chinese entities, including a university and company on the Entity List.
Exporter Camel Group defended its motion to unredact and re-designate part of the administrative record in its case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing on July 18 that the government won't suffer harm if Camel Group's lawyers can share the documents with the company. The exporter claimed that the government's interest in shielding the documents is "tarnished by continued inconsistencies in its designation" (Camel Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).
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.
Alexander Fried, trade attorney at the Commerce Department, has left the agency, he announced on LinkedIn. Fried worked as an attorney adviser at Commerce since September 2022, advising the International Trade Administration on various issues, including digital service taxes, implementing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, UFLPA litigation, and trade remedies investigations and litigation.
Information collected under the Export Control Reform Act is “presumptively withheld” from Freedom of Information Act requests, the U.S. said July 14 in a case involving the disclosure of documents related to an addition to the Entity List (Husch Blackwell v. Department of Commerce, D.D.C. # 1:24-02733).
CBP unlawfully excluded importer Maxeon Americas' solar module entries on the basis that the goods were made, in whole or in part, in Xinjiang or by a company on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Maxeon argued in a July 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said the agency ignored "substantial and persuasive" evidence showing the company's Max6 model solar modules weren't made in Xinjiang or by a listed company, adding that the agency appears to be using an "unreasonably difficult standard" in reviewing whether goods are made in Xinjiang (Maxeon Americas v. United States, CIT # 25-00074).
The U.S. opposed exporter Camel Group's motion to unredact part of the record in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing on July 10 that disclosure of information deemed confidential "would substantially harm the Government's" law enforcement efforts in applying the UFLPA. The government told the Court of International Trade it has a "strong interest in protecting the law enforcement sensitive information," while Camel has "no compelling argument as to why disclosure to the public, or to Camel, as opposed to confidential disclosure, is necessary" (Camel Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).
The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force failed to undertake a transparent process in considering exporter Ninestar's application for delisting from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar told the Court of International Trade on June 26. Ninestar said FLETF's process was neither "fair, transparent," nor "productive," and led the task force to ignore its obligations and the company's rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The U.S. and law firm Husch Blackwell again swapped briefs June 13 in the firm’s Freedom of Information Act dispute. Husch Blackwell said the government, which provided a list of more than 100 disclosed and undisclosed documents related to the firm’s FOIA request regarding an Entity List listing when it filed for summary judgment (see 2505300055), still wasn’t making clear which documents were actually responsive to the request (Husch Blackwell v. Department of Commerce, D.D.C. # 1:24-02733).
A law firm said May 23 that the U.S. was failing to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act partly because it was relying on a “novelly broad” interpretation of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (Husch Blackwell v. Department of Commerce, D.D.C. # 1:24-02733).