Importer Takes CBP to CIT for Failing to Provide 'Substantial Evidence' in EAPA Case on OCTG
CBP failed to provide "substantial evidence" that importer Kana Energy Services Inc. imported Chinese-origin oil country tubular goods and arbitrarily applied adverse inferences in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion determination in an Enforce and Protect Act case on OCTG from Thailand, the importer told the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 14 complaint (Kana Energy Services v. United States, CIT # 25-00186).
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.
Kana said that the record "contains no evidence" that it directly imported covered merchandise that was not produced by its Thai supplier, Thai Oil Pipe Co., from steel billets in Thailand. Rather, Kana said, its supplier purchased input materials in Thailand and provided CBP with documentation "showing some shipments of OCTG to the United States had been produced in Thailand using imported billets." Kana said that CBP's conclusion that its imports into the U.S. of finished OCTG that contained Chinese "mother pipe" are "covered merchandise" is "not supported by substantial evidence."
Kana maintained that the record established that it exercised "reasonable care" in verifying its supplier before importing the OCTG at issue and properly entered all merchandise as being of Thai origin. Based on this information, the company said, the record "does not demonstrate Kana specifically purchased anything other than Thai origin products." Both the supplier's submissions and the on-site verification report "do not demonstrate" that the OCTG it sold to Kana was "specifically China-origin OCTG and is therefore not supported by substantial evidence," Kana said.
The four-count complaint also alleged CBP inappropriately applied adverse inferences and incorrectly found that Kana presented false statements, resulting in EAPA liability. Kana said that CBP used an "inadvertent error" in its tax returns to demonstrate a "materially false statement" and similarly used a submitted internal report that "happened to differ from non binding, outdated, and unofficial online listings." Kana also said that it cooperated "fully and to the best of its ability with CBP," and that CBP's application of adverse inferences is "unsupported by record evidence and is arbitrary and capricious."