Remand Extension Senseless When Scope Already Known, Importer Argues at CIT
The Commerce Department is seeking additional "bites at the apple" in an Enforce and Protect Act case despite its evasion finding being unsupported, Norca Industrial Company said in an Oct. 11 reply at the Court of International Trade. Norca opposes CBP's request for an additional 90 days of remand proceedings, arguing that the issue is already decided since its carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings are out of scope. "This inquiry should end. Not in 90 days, but now," Norca said (Norca Industrial Company v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00192).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In 2020, CBP issued an evasion finding against Norca for allegedly transshipping fittings from China through Vietnam to avoid antidumping duties. Commerce asked for and was granted a voluntary remand in March 2022 and then asked for a stay pending a covered merchandise review in July 2022. That review found that Norca's fittings were outside the scope of the order, which Norca argued, "invalidates the evasion determination."
Instead of accepting that its evasion determination was unsupported, CBP now seeks to extend the process, Norca said. CBP changed "gear" and requested an additional 90 days from when the pretrial order was extended. That's longer than the government first requested when it moved for a voluntary remand nearly two years ago, Norca said.
At the time, the government assured the court of an expeditious decision from Commerce within 140 days, but that promise has now stretched to 391 days, Norca said. The company pointed to the same request and quoted the government as saying that the referral would "end this case ... in the event that Commerce effectively invalidates CBP’s finding of evasion by determining that rough fittings are outside the scope of the Order.”
Norca has previously argued that the long process has been detrimental to its ability to grow because of the requirement of devoting $2 million of its line of credit for collateral. That amount has at times "represented 100% of available collateral, [creating] financial hardships that, among other things, required staff reduction, salary, and incentive suspension," Norca said in a February brief (see 2302140065).