Importer Says US Support of CBP Refusal to Refund Overpaid AD/CVD Not Substantially Justified
An importer of stainless steel sinks from China filed its motion for judgment in a case it brought in 2020 challenging CBP’s assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on the entire declared value of its products despite “express instructions” to do otherwise (R.H. Peterson v. U.S., CIT # 20-00099).
“This case concerns a straightforward issue of whether sinks and enumerated sink parts and costs of imported sink kits which the Government admits are excluded from or otherwise not within the scope of AD/CVD orders are nonetheless subject to AD/CVD,” it said.
CBP, importer R.H. Peterson alleged, refused to return the importer’s overpayment of the duties, “instead retaining it under questionable authority under the auspices of offsetting other purported debt.“
It also asked the court to find the government’s position to be not substantially justified, which would allow it to recover attorney’s fees and expenses.
The importer said it learned in 2018 that its imported sinks came from China, not Taiwan, and that components were within the scope of AD/CVD orders. It reported that to CBP, which assessed duties on the entire invoice value R.H. Peterson had declared, not just the components, it said.
It said that the U.S. has “stubbornly continued to argue, contrary to its own CBP witnesses and policy,” that the entire sinks are subject to the orders.
Specifically, it argued, sink brackets that originated from Taiwan, along with “freight, machining, and quality control, shipping, and profit, all of which occur in Taiwan after exportation of the sinks and parts originating in China,” weren’t subject to the orders.
At one point, it claimed, CBP approved one protest and denied another “based on the same information.”
“Plaintiff has repeatedly sought to informally resolve this case on mutually agreeable terms in accordance with CBP witness testimony and policy, but the Government has refused to even seriously engage in these discussions,” it said. “Accordingly, this Court must decide the case.”
The U.S. filed a motion to dismiss the case in 2023 claiming that the importer couldn’t bring its case because it hadn’t paid all its duties owed (see 2305080031). One charge of its complaint also challenged a protest that had been accepted, it said.