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.
Three importers said in combined remand comments that CBP was attempting to illegally shift the burden of proof onto them to prove they weren't guilty of evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act (Newtrend USA Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).
CBP imposed interim restrictions on an importer without informing it of an ongoing Enforce and Protect Act investigation, then put partly confidential information on the record without notice so that the importer couldn’t rebut it, that importer said in a Feb. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Superior Commercial Solutions LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00052).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 26 granted the U.S. request for a voluntary remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case led by American Pacific Plywood to address the Federal Circuit's holding in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not providing it with access to confidential business information in the investigation (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2321).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 25 granted the U.S. government's unopposed motion to voluntarily remand an Enforce and Protect Act case to consider the appellate court's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In Royal Brush, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by failing to provide it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 23 denied a U.S. request for a voluntary remand to reconsider due process issues in an Enforce and Protect Act case involving cast iron soil pipe imports by Phoenix Metal, in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S.
Pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing was required to file protests before it could challenge CBP's allegedly improper liquidations under an Enforce and Protect Act antidumping duty evasion investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 15. Dismissing the company's case for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Mark Barnett echoed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Juice Farms v. U.S. in ruling that "all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement."
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 14 opinion granted the government's request for a voluntary remand in a duty evasion case on hardwood plywood from China in light of two recent judicial opinions. One decision saw the Commerce Department reverse course on whether exporter Vietnam Finewood Co.'s goods are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, while the other said it was illegal for CBP not to give parties to Enforce and Protect Act actions access to business confidential information.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 8 lifted a stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case following its decision in the key Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. case. In that decision, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038). The present case concerns an EAPA investigation on the alleged transshipment of Chinese xanthan gum via India and was stayed pending the resolution of Royal Brush, given the overlap in the due process claims (see 2310170034). The U.S. is now attempting to distinguish its present situation from Royal Brush, arguing that the Federal Circuit's recent decision is irrelevant since "the facts here are materially different" seeing as liquidation became final in the present spat given that the importer didn't appeal its denied protest at CBP (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
CBP's failure to seek clarification from the Commerce Department on whether importer Vanguard Trading Co.'s surface products were subject to the antidumping duty order on quartz surface products from China as part of an AD evasion case was "arbitrary and capricious," Vanguard told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 4 complaint (Vanguard Trading Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00253).