The Supreme Court on Oct. 2 declined to hear an appeal of a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit that False Claims Act whistleblower lawsuits may be filed for failure to pay marking duties on unmarked or improperly marked imports. A lower court had in 2015 dismissed the lawsuit (see 1504290070), filed against the pipe fitting importer Victaulic by Customs Fraud Investigations, a company founded to investigate customs fraud, before it was resurrected by the appeals court (see 1610060030). Victaulic subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied certiorari in the case without comment.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Sept. 5-8 in case they were missed.
The Justice Department’s recent intervention in a whistleblower case against a UK retailer that allegedly split shipments on its U.S. imports to avoid duties “sends a clear message that this behavior will not be tolerated,” said the law firm Constantine Cannon, which represents the whistleblower, in a Sept. 8 press release. The July complaint alleges that Pure Collection and its executive Samantha Harrison deliberately split large orders so their shipments to the U.S. would fall under the $200 de minimis threshold, later raised to $800, despite knowing the practice violated customs rules.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Aug. 14-18 in case they were missed.
The U.S. government filed a federal court complaint on Aug. 10 alleging a Florida importer of wooden bedroom furniture sought to evade antidumping duties and customs fees by misclassifying and undervaluing its furniture imports. Blue Furniture Solutions evaded “millions of dollars” in duties and fees by classifying its wooden bedroom furniture as metal and office furniture to avoid a 216.01% antidumping duty rate, and stating false values of its imports on entry documentation.
A group of Chinese garlic companies, a U.S. law firm and a group of small New Mexico farmers apparently worked in league to increase another Chinese exporter’s antidumping duty rate, the Commerce Department said in a memorandum issued in connection with its recently completed AD duty administrative review on garlic from China. Finding the law firm and the New Mexico farmers it represented made misstatements to hide their effort, Commerce in recent days ended its review of that exporter rather than assign it a high China-wide rate (see 1706140022).
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Nov. 21-25 in case they were missed.
Huber agreed to pay more than $2 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit alleging it misclassified its imports of pigment to avoid paying a higher tariff rate, according to documents unsealed by the Western North Carolina U.S. District Court. According to the False Claims Act complaint filed by the whistleblower -- John Dickson, chief executive officer of National Ford Chemical -- two companies now owned by Huber, Hostmann-Steinberg and Micro Inks, fraudulently obtained rulings from CBP that directed classification under a tariff subheading for printing ink. The pigment they were actually importing required further processing before being used as printing ink, a fact they did not convey to CBP, the complaint said. Printing ink is subject to a lower tariff rate. The companies also undervalued the merchandise, the settlement said. Huber did not admit to the allegations as part of the settlement. Under the agreement, Huber will pay $2 million to the government and $187,000 to the whistleblower. The court still has yet to accept the settlement and dismiss the case. The government, which chose to intervene in the case, said in a July filing that the issue of how much Dickson will receive in the settlement was still undecided. Dickson received nearly $8 million of a $45 million settlement with another ink company in 2012 resolving a False Claims Act case (see 12121804).
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Oct. 3-7 in case they were missed.
False Claims Act whistleblower lawsuits may be filed for failure to pay marking duties on unmarked or improperly marked imports, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit said Oct. 5 as it resurrected a whistleblower lawsuit filed by a company founded to investigate customs fraud (here). Reversing the dismissal of Customs Fraud Investigations’ (CFI) lawsuit against pipe fitting importer Victaulic by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in September 2014 (see 1504290070), the Appeals Court sent the case back down with instructions to allow CFI to amend its complaint to include new evidence of Victaulic’s alleged fraud.