Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
CBP's regulations regarding the notice provided to importers subject to Enforce and Protect Act investigations and when CBP must initiate those investigations violated an importer's due process rights, the Court of International Trade held on Nov. 26.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 26 found provisions of CBP's Enforce and Protect Act regulations violate importers' due process rights. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said a provision which requires notice to the importer no later than five business days after day 90 of an EAPA investigation doesn't give the importer a "procedural due process right to notice" and a "meaningful opportunity to be heard" prior to the imposition of interim measures. She also found CBP erred in taking more than 15 days to open an investigation after receiving an allegation. Instead of vacating the investigation, however, the judge ordered CBP to "rescind the interim and final enforcement measures imposed on quartz countertop products imported by" Superior water Sept. 29, 2022, the date on which the court said CBP was required to start its investigation.
Dominican aluminum extrusions exporter Kingtom Aluminio, which faces a CBP forced labor finding, defended Oct. 31 the Court of International Trade’s decision to vacate the finding pending the conclusion of litigation. It declared that “[i]ts very survival is in jeopardy” due to the finding (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Oct. 23 to reconsider a temporary stay of a CBP forced labor finding regarding a Dominican aluminum extrusions exporter (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).
The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's determination, made on remand, that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking, Inc., evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. In a decision made public Oct. 9, Judge Lisa Wang rejected Scioto's claim that CBP can only make an affirmative evasion finding if it finds the importer to actually have imported covered merchandise through evasion, and the judge found the evasion determination to be supported by substantial evidence.
The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit last week against wire garment hanger importer LGA Trading and its director, Galo Goya, at the Court of International Trade, seeking over $3.1 million as a penalty for negligence and over $1.9 million in unpaid duties (United States v. LGA Trading, CIT # 25-00214).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 25 sustained CBP's finding that importer Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Timothy Reif upheld CBP's decision to set the "effective date of the evasion determination" at the start date for the period of investigation rather than the date the Commerce Department found Blue Pipe's product to fall within the scope of the AD order.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 25 sustained CBP's finding that Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. While Blue Pipe consented to the application of the evasion determination to its goods after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Commerce Department's scope ruling including its dual-stenciled pipe in the order, the company said the determination should run from the start of the scope inquiry and not the start of the evasion investigation. Judge Timothy Reif rejected this request, finding that the Enforce and Protect Act's lack of a "reasonable notice" requirement and the fact that the AD order had no clear exclusions warrants applying the evasion determination to the start of the investigation.