Multinational conglomerate Honeywell Inc. expects to pay upwards of $160 million to settle investigations by the Department of Justice and Brazilian law enforcement over alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the company said in its quarterly report filed on Oct. 22 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company said it continues to cooperate with DOJ and the SEC throughout the investigations, including regarding a potential resolution of the allegations. Honeywell said that it recorded a $160 million charge in its Consolidated Statement of Operations, also accruing a liability on its Consolidated Balance Sheet to account for the expected payout.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 22 backed the Commerce Department's decision to pick Malaysia as the primary surrogate country in an antidumping duty review, despite using a Romanian company's financial statements to determine the surrogate financial ratios is backed by substantial evidence. Sustaining Commerce's remand results in the AD review, Chief Judge Mark Barnett also upheld the agency's surrogate value selection for bituminous coal, an input of the subject merchandise of the review, activated carbon, and Commerce's financial ratio calculations.

CBP on Oct. 18 asked the Alaska U.S. District Court to reconsider a temporary restraining order it issued on Jones Act penalties levied against Alaskan shipping companies, arguing that the TRO is "overbroad." Seeking to preserve its right to issue Jones Act penalties on shipments for which the five-year statute of limitations may run out, CBP wants to change the injunction from applying to any penalty notices relating to the Jones Act violation in question to just applying to penalty notices issued on or after Sept. 30 (Kloosterboer International Forwarding LLC, et al. v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).

The Court of International Trade should reconsider its dismissals of multiple classification lawsuits over LED lamps because the events that resulted in the dismissals constituted "excusable neglect," counsel for Target and other LED importers argued in an Oct. 15 motion. In 10 cases making the classification challenge, the plaintiffs' counsel, John Peterson of Neville Peterson, argued that the plaintiffs' failure to extend the case's stay on the Customs Case Management Calendar "reasonably resulted from events both practical and circumstantial" (Target General Merchandise, Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00283).

Korean steel company Hyundai Steel's port usage rights and sewerage fee reductions are not countervailable benefits, with both stemming from unique arrangements that were not government subsidies specific to Hyundai, the company said in an Oct. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #21-00536).

The entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should hear a case over whether tapered roller bearing importer Wanxiang America Corp. has jurisdiction to challenge guidance issued from the Commerce Department to CBP on the assessment of antidumping duties, the importer argued in an Oct. 18 petition at the Federal Circuit. Arguing that a panel at the appellate court's decision will force importers subject to customs penalty claims into a "Hobbesian choice," that will "eviscerate their right to judicial review," the entire court should reverse the panel's ruling, WAC argued (Wanxiang America Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-1044).

The Commerce Department dropped its reliance on facts otherwise available in a countervailing duty review related to a South Korean port usage rights program, in Oct. 20 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Having filed for a voluntary remand at CIT to tackle what it identified as its own mistakes in relying on facts otherwise available, Commerce found it no longer needed to apply facts available after receiving additional information from the relvant exporter (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #20-03799).

The Court of International remanded in part and sustained in part the final results of the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea, in an Oct. 19 order. Tackling six different issues raised by the plaintiff, AD respondent SeAH Steel Corp., Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sustained Commerce's constructed export price profit rate and its exclusion of freight revenue profit, while remanding Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test in its differential pricing analysis when identifying masked dumping and the agency's particular market situation determination.

The Commerce Department denied two Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests after completing a voluntary remand to reconsider its decision to initially reject the exclusion bids. Submitting the denials on Oct. 18 in remand results at the Court of International Trade, Commerce cited the International Trade Administration's analysis of the situation, which found that the domestic industry had enough capacity to take over for the subject imports (Maple Leaf Marketing, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-00125).