Chinese-origin countertop importer Superior Commercial Solutions argued Dec. 6 it hadn’t waived its challenge to the CBP regulation that allows it to initiate Enforce and Protect Act investigations based on a petition’s “date of receipt,” which is determined by the agency (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).
EAPA Litigation
Under the Enforce and Protect Act, CBP investigates whether a company is evading particular antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Litigation on determinations made under the relatively new statute have centered on due process protections for respondents, CBP's evidentiary basis for its decisions and the interplay of decisions made on the scope of the applicable AD/CVD orders from both CBP and the Commerce Department. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a key decision for all EAPA cases in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, when it found CBP to have violated a respondent's due process protections by failing to provide it with access to the business proprietary information used in the proceeding.
CBP properly found that importer Skyview Cabinet USA evaded the antidumping and countervailing duties on wooden cabinets and vanities after correcting a due process violation in the evasion proceeding, the Court of International Trade held on Nov. 27. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the court already found the evasion finding sufficient and that Skyview didn't advance any new evidence or arguments after the due process-related remand.
An importer of Vietnamese countertops said in a response to an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that it didn’t deny some of its countertops should have been covered by AD orders on Chinese quartz slabs -- it just hadn’t known they had originated from China (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. on June 28 overturned a hallmark of administrative law that had stood for four decades: the court's principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous statutes established in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
An importer on June 20 accused CBP of placing “wholly unrelated” lab tests on the record to support an evasion decision and illegally refusing to consider the scope ruling that importer sought from the Commerce Department. As a result, it said, the CBP’s final determination was unlawful (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).
CBP continued to find that three importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China on remand at the Court of International Trade, after providing the companies with access to the confidential information in the Enforce and Protect Act proceeding (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT # 20-03914).
The Court of International Trade on April 8 upheld CBP's decision on remand that four importers didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the decision will be upheld because because there's "no substantive challenge" to the remand.
CBP reversed its finding that four importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting its remand results on March 20, CBP said that since the Commerce Department reversed its covered merchandise scope decision in a separate trade court case, the importers' goods no longer constitute "covered merchandise" and thus did not evade the AD/CVD orders (Far East American v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00213).
CBP violated Phoenix Metal Co.'s due process rights by not giving it notice and a chance to comment on interim measures imposed in an Enforce and Protect Act case on the company's cast iron soil pipe imports, the company said March 15 (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).
CBP is adding an administrative protective order process for companies involved in Enforce and Protect Act investigations to access business confidential information of other "interested parties," so the companies can have full access to CBP's decision-making in a duty evasion investigation, the agency said.