Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

In November 2001, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued an anti-dumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand, found that the company was selling the subject merchandise at less than normal value and assigned a dumping margin of 3.86%. In 2006 the order was partially revoked, as to the company, but remained in effect with respect to other exporters and producers. Commerce received a complaint that dumping had resumed and initiated changed circumstances review (CCR), despite the company's assertion that it lacked authority to so. The Court of International Trade (CIT) dismissed the company's suit for an injunction in 2009. Commerce reinstated the order with respect to the company; CIT affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Commerce reasonably interpreted and acted on its revocation and CCR authority under 19 U.S.C. 1675(b, d) as permitting conditional revocation and reconsideration.

Plaintiff imported the LCD monitors and entered them under a subheading of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States for "Automatic data processing machines and units thereof; magnetic or optical readers, machines for transcribing data onto data media in coded form and machines for processing such data, not elsewhere specified or included: Input or output units, whether or not containing storage units in the same housing: Other: Display units: Other: Other." The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection classified and reliquidated the monitors under a subheading, dutiable at 5% ad valorem, for: "Reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radiobroadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus; video monitors and video projectors: video monitors: Color: With a flat panel screen: Other: Other. " The Court of International Trade upheld the designation. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded because the Court of International Trade expressly did not reach the issue of the adequacy of the evidence for either a principal use or principal function.

The holder of patents on an FDA-approved product that promotes eyelash growth claimed patent infringement and violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200 unfair competition provisions against companies marketing similar products. The district court dismissed the state law claims for lack of standing under an amendment to that law, enacted by the voters as Proposition 64. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The complaint adequately alleged economic injury caused by defendants' unfair business practices; it is not necessary that the plaintiff had direct business dealings with the defendants.

The Department of Commerce has employed a technique known as "zeroing" when it investigates a claim that a foreign producer is "dumping" products in the United States at a price below the price in the country of origin. Using zeroing, margins for sales of merchandise sold by a particular exporter at dumped prices are aggregated and margins for sales at non-dumped prices are given a value of zero; the alternative, known as "offsetting," involves aggregating both dumped and non-dumped prices. The statute, 19 U.S.C. 1677(35)(A), refers to calculation of a "dumping margin" equal to "the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price." Domestic producers read the word "exceeds" as requiring zeroing. The Federal Circuit has previously upheld use of zeroing in both investigation and administrative review. Following a World Trade Organization decision disapproving the practice, the Department began using offsetting for investigations and zeroing in administrative review. The Court of International Trade upheld the practice. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the Department had not adequately justified use of two different interpretations of an ambiguous statute.

The company imports components for home storage and organization systems. The U.S. Customs Service liquidated wall panels and locator tabs as "other articles of plastic" rather than as furniture. The company filed protests and requested that the parts be reclassified under duty free provisions. Customs denied the protests. The Court of International Trade ruled in favor of Customs. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. While the lower court examined appropriate authority in defining "unit furniture," it incorrectly determined that a storage panel with hooks was like a wall rack rather than furniture. Noting the various accessories and configurations available with the system, the court stated that the product's versatility is the "very essence of unit furniture."