A furniture importer's argument that the Enforce and Protect Act investigation finding it guilty of antidumping duty evasion was unconstitutional is not valid since the importer does not have a protectable interest, the Department of Justice said in a July 9 brief in the Court of International Trade. Since a protectable interest is necessary to claim a due process violation has been committed, Aspects Furniture International's constitutional arguments against the EAPA process fall flat, DOJ said (Aspects Furnitre International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03824).
Global Aluminum Distributor backed Kingtom Aluminio's renewed bid to join a lawsuit over an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found it helped importers evade antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, while the original EAPA alleger, Ta Chen International, disputed Kingtom's motion for reconsideration in the case, in briefs filed July 7 (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00198). Kingtom asks the Court of International Trade to reverse its own June 21 decision that Kingtom can't intervene in the case, brought by the importers found to have evaded AD/CV duties.
Two importers of steel grating from China didn't declare the goods as subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders as required, CBP said in a recently posted notice of determination. CBP made the determination following an allegation from Hog Slat that prompted an investigation into Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product under the Enforce and Protect Act. The investigation involved entries of "galvanized steel Tri-Bar Floor product (tribar floors), composed of rolled steel rods welded to another steel cross rod (i.e., a product of two or more pieces of steel joined together by assembly)," CBP said.
Among the recent plethora of lawsuits filed in the Court of International Trade challenging the constitutionality of the Enforce and Protect Act process for investigating evasion of antindumping and countervailing duty orders (see 2106070011), at least one invokes the Eighth Amendment, a rarely litigated part of the U.S. Constitution. Filed by trade lawyer David Craven on behalf of Global Aluminum Distributor, the lawsuit challenges EAPA penalties based on the amendment's prohibition on excessive fines.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
By subjecting aluminum extrusion importer Global Aluminum Distributor to two antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigations for the same conduct and entries, CBP violated Global Aluminum's rights to due process, the importer said. Filing a July 2 complaint in the Court of International Trade, Global Aluminum called out the customs agency for breaking "long-standing principles of fundamental fairness" by including the importer in multiple evasion investigations under the Enforce and Protect Act -- a process already riddled with due process violations, according to the complaint (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00312).
Many cases challenging findings of antidumping or countervailing duty evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act include claims that the process has violated an importer's constitutional rights, particularly under the Fifth Amendment. Case after case in the Court of International Trade argues elements of the EAPA process -- from the lack of notice provided to an importer that it's under investigation to the insufficient public summaries of proprietary information in the investigation -- violate importers' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. However, the circumstances under which these claims may actually be heard by CIT may have yet to come, trade lawyers said.
CBP asked the Commerce Department to say whether aluminum sheet from China produced according to two scenarios is subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders. The May 13 notice was posted June 24. The request is part of a CBP Enforce and Protect Act investigation into whether AA Metals evaded AD/CV duties. Specifically, CBP would like Commerce to determine whether “Chinese-origin aluminum sheet of a thickness a little greater than covered by the scope re-rolled in Turkey to a thickness covered by the scope” and “Chinese-origin aluminum sheet of a thickness covered by the scope re-rolled in Turkey to a thickness covered by the scope” should be subject to the orders.
CBP asked the Commerce Department to weigh in on whether steel wheels from China alleged to have evaded antidumping and countervailing duties fall within the scope of the orders, CBP said in a notice posted June 28. The request is part of a CBP Enforce and Protect Act investigation into whether Vanguard National Trailer used transshipment through Thailand to evade the duties. “CBP is unable to determine whether the steel wheels exported from Thailand by Asia Wheel Co. Ltd. (Asia Wheel), which are produced from imported rectangular steel plates from China and a third country that Asia Wheel converts into rims in Thailand and welds with Chinese-origin discs in Thailand, are covered merchandise subject to the AD and CVD orders,” the agency said.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.