The U.S. and importer Greenlight Organic, along with its owner Parambir Singh "Sonny" Aulakh, filed a joint stipulation of dismissal in the government's customs fraud suit against Greenlight and its owner. The dismissal comes after the parties filed a joint status report noting that a settlement was reached in the case (see 2408260014) (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).
Jacob Kopnick
Jacob Kopnick, Associate Editor, is a reporter for Trade Law Daily and its sister publications Export Compliance Daily and International Trade Today. He joined the Warren Communications News team in early 2021 covering a wide range of topics including trade-related court cases and export issues in Europe and Asia. Jacob's background is in trade policy, having spent time with both CSIS and USTR researching international trade and its complexities. Jacob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Public Policy.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. will pay conservation groups Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society $375,000 in attorney's fees related to their case on an import ban on fish from New Zealand's West Coast North Island inshore trawl and set net fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. U.S., CIT # 20-00112).
Anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) will appeal a Court of International Trade decision finding it didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. The trade court said IRAdvocates failed to show that the agency's inaction harmed a "core business or diminished any asset" -- a standard estsablished by the Supreme Court (see 2408080049). Counsel for IRAdvocates said if its claim for standing fails on appeal, it's prepared to refile the case using a party that could hurdle the trade court's understanding of standing, such as a child laborer in West Africa or a U.S. chocolate company that competes with imports made using child labor (see 2408160009) (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).
Exporters CS Wind Malaysia and CS Wind Korea filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 6 challenging the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from Malaysia. The companies, collectively referred to as CS Wind, challenged Commerce's alleged failure to apply a cost adjustment to CS Wind's cost of manufacturing and decision to calculate the constructed value profit and selling expense ratios based on an average of two surrogate Malaysian companies (CS Wind Malaysia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00150).
The EU General Court on Sept. 4 upheld the sanctions listing for Samer al-Assad, a cousin of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, after rejecting Samer al-Assad's claim that the EU's listing criteria, which permit sanctions on the president's family members, violates "general principles of EU law."
DOJ on Sept. 5 unsealed two indictments against dual Russian-U.S. citizens Dimitri Simes and Anastasia Simes, residents of Huntly, Virginia, for their role in a scheme to violate U.S. sanctions.
The EU Court of Justice on Sept. 5 said that a notary doesn't violate sanctions on Russia by authenticating the sale of a property owned by a non-sanctioned Russian company. The court said that authentication services don't amount to the provision of "legal advisory services," which are barred under EU sanctions if provided to "legal persons established in Russia."
Importer Solid State Logic voluntarily dismissed its customs suit on its audio production consoles, filing a notice of dismissal on Sept. 5 at the Court of International Trade. The company brought the suit to claim that the entered value of its consoles was overstated. Counsel for Solid State didn't respond to request for comment as to why the case was dismissed (Solid State Logic v. United States, CIT # 22-00310).
The Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit on Sept. 6 extended the ban on Judge Pauline Newman from hearing new cases for another year. The decision comes after a recommendation from Judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto to extend the sanction on Newman, 97, which was originally imposed for her refusal to cooperate with an investigation into her fitness to continue serving as a judge (see 2407240029). The three judges said Newman hadn't shown any evidence to undermine the record "raising serious concerns about" her "cognitive state" and that the judge still hasn't cooperated with the investigation. The extended ban will run for one year from the date of the Sept. 6 order.