Glycine Importers Say CBP's Evasion Finding Rests Only on 'Speculation'
Three importers found to have evaded antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese glycine told the Court of International Trade that CBP has failed to offer any evidence of direct evasion of the orders. The importers, Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave Co., said in a brief last week that all three categories of evidence relied on by CBP amount to "nothing more than speculation" (Newtrend USA Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00347).
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 finding that the importers evaded the orders, CBP relied on three categories of information: an alleged statement made in the investigative report that Indonesian manufacturer PT Newtrend Nutrition Ingredient had no Indonesian glycine to sell but could provide it directly to China; import statistics showing imports of Chinese-origin goods entering Indonesia; and the affiliation between Newtrend USA and Newtrend Group and a potential affiliated relationship between Starille and Nutrawave.
The importers argued that none of this evidence is enough to find evasion. For instance, regarding the alleged statement on the source of PT Newtrend's glycine, the importers said no "written documentation of any kind supports this interaction or any subsequent, related sale." The brief said no "quotes, no purchase order, no subsequent invoice exist on the record."
Regarding the import statistics showing glycine entering Indonesia from China, the importers argued that "none of this data provides substantial evidence that the Plaintiffs' imports were Chinese in origin as the data ultimately stops at the shores of Indonesia with no link to the exports made by" PT Newtrend to the importers during the investigation period. There's no data showing greater quantities of Chinese glycine to the Indonesian port closest to PT Newtrend's facility, nor is there data showing that China was the "largest source country for Indonesia's glycine imports on the record," the brief said.
Instead, the import statistics refer to a "basket category of amino acids that is not specific to glycine," the importers said. But even if this court were to find that these imports represented glycine shipments, there's still no evidence that these imports "are the same glycine exported from Indonesia and then imported into the United States by the Importers." Under CBP's "logic, the country of origin of the Plaintiffs' imports could just have easily been Germany or Korea as it could China," the brief said.
In its own brief, the government argued that while there's no direct evidence that PT Newtrend imported Chinese glycine, there are facts showing "intertwined relationships that would enable transshipment strategies to be executed as to glycine produced in China." CBP said it wouldn't expect an entity to so blatantly document its duty evasion, making it reasonable for CBP to find that "Chinese Newtrend Group employees orchestrated all the transactions in the Importers’ supply chain and controlled the key players," the brief said.
The U.S. also emphasized the alleged statement made in the investigative report, urging the court not to ignore that PT Newtrend "offered Chinese glycine" and not glycine from "Indonesia, Germany, Korea nor glycine from any of the other various countries listed on the import statistics."
As for the importers' claim that the import statistics fail to show that imports of Chinese glycine into Indonesia turn into exports from Indonesia, the government said the importers "would have CBP (and the Court) 'silo' or partition separate pieces of evidence without considering the evidence in the tapestry of other evidence." The government argued that "CBP appropriately considered the import statistics against the backdrop of the totality of other cumulative evidence suggesting that the glycine sold to the importers was of Chinese origin."