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."
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 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 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.
The Commerce Department stuck by its treatment of antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum's raw material costs and hedging revenues on remand at the Court of International Trade in the AD investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey. However, the agency modified Assan's duty drawback adjustment, resulting in a slight uptick in the respondent's AD rate, from 2.28% to 2.3% (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Tiaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).
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).
Importer Woodcraft Supply filed a complaint on Sept. 6 at the Court of International Trade seeking refunds on duties overpaid due to CBP's refusal to use "first sale" valuation on the company's woodworking tools and related article imports (Woodcraft Supply v. United States, CIT # 22-00253).
The U.S. voluntarily dismissed its appeal of a case initially filed by importer Fraserview Remanufacturing to contest the erroneous deemed liquidation of its goods that were subject to suspended liquidation. The Court of International Trade in the case said Fraserview didn't need a protest to file its suit (see 2401250039). The court said that since the statute for deemed liquidation requires that the entries not be suspended, CBP's notices of deemed liquidation didn't operate to actually liquidate the entries. The U.S. appealed the decision but dropped the matter in a joint stipulation on Sept. 5 (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2049).
Ontario resident Wasseem Ramjaun pleaded guilty Sept. 4 to importing counterfeit goods, causing a "total loss" of $4,216,025, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York announced. He faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and a $2 million fine.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 5 issued its mandate in a trio of cases on whether the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 requires payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers. In July, the court said the Act doesn't require the payment of delinquency interest but only requires payments of interest that's "earned" on antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order (see 2407150031). The mandate awarded $44.16 in costs to the U.S. (Adee Honey Farms, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2105) (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106) (American Drew v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2114).