US Opposes CIT Mediation in Dispute on Detained Tires
The U.S. opposed importer Inspired Ventures' bid for court-annexed mediation in the company's case against CBP's decision to put two of its rubber tire entries on hold under suspicions the goods had a high risk of tariff evasion. The government said the dispute between Inspired and the U.S. is "legal in nature" and thus "not amenable to mediation" (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).
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.
CBP detained the tire entries, then suggested the goods may be in violation of Transportation Department safety standards, corresponding with DOT to review the goods. DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration told CBP that the tires aren't compliant with various department regulations.
CBP then sought to seize the goods, though it issued Inspired Ventures a seizure notice only after the company brought the present case at CIT. Inspired Ventures filed for court-led mediation after the U.S. said the importer will be a "prevailing party" but that CBP will detain the tires "no matter the Court's decision" (see 2505050002). Over a year after the entries were filed, the U.S. now says the importer must file "live entries" and deposit around three times the applicable ordinary and antidumping and countervailing duties to secure the release of the goods.
In response to the mediation request, the U.S. said the importer "incorrectly maintains that the government continues to refuse its release." The government said it's prepared to release the merchandise and has "engaged Inspired" on the "legal requirements that must be followed prior to the release of the merchandise, specifically, the payment of all duties, taxes, and fees on the correct value of the merchandise or the procurement of a single transaction bond to cover these amounts."
The U.S. said the importer doesn't articulate under what basis CIT or a mediator may entertain jurisdiction over "entry procedures and valuation procedures" that aren't before the court in this case but are within CBP's purview, the brief said.
In an email, Chris Duncan, counsel for Inspired Ventures, said the U.S. "conveniently omits that Inspired filed, and CBP accepted and released, the entry summaries for both entries, and Inspired paid all duties and AD/CVD for one shipment." He said CBP should agree that this one shipment is released, but CBP "surprisingly" claims that even for this shipment, it won't be released unless an amount of over three times the applicable AD/CVD and customs duties are paid in advance due to an "unexplained value increase."
“This totally disregards the CF 29 procedures for increasing the value of a shipment set forth in the customs regulations,” Duncan said. “Also, as the government knows but omits, the ‘protest’ path is illusory because relief would be unavailable for years given the time it takes for Commerce to conclude the process and issue liquidation instructions.” He said if the issue isn't settled now, the parties "will be right back in court disputing whether CBP has violated the court’s order to release the merchandise, which is the relief Inspired will obtain if the case continues.”