Unfortunately, I have read way too many court documents.
Your reply leads me to believe that you either didn't open the link or that you could not understand it, so in addition to the link, here is the relevant part that you missed (again, written by a FEDERAL JUDGE in a decision regarding the lawsuit against KABIR). I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer to you:
Plaintiffs sent the invoices, bills of lading, and packing lists for the sales to JK Group, and these documents mention JK Group as one of the three “parties to notify” (presumably that the shipment had been made). E.g., Ex. 1 to the Mahabubul Dep. They list prices but no other term relevant to payment obligations.
JK Group placed the nine orders at issue in this case between May 2006 and November 2006. The invoices for the nine sales were similar to those exchanged throughout the parties’ course of dealing. Rafiqul Alam, an agent for JK Group in Bangladesh, received these invoices from Ahmed and emailed them to JK Group. The invoices attached to Alam’s affidavit differ from those submitted by plaintiffs in that they identify JK Group as the “consignee-buyer” instead of a party to notify. See Ex. D to Defs.’ Resp. at BJK 000044-BJK 000052.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
