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.
In a March 8 brief, antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners argued that their case raises an “important issue of first impression for this Court” because it asks whether CBP’s Office of Rulings and Regulations is allowed to reverse evidence-based evasion determinations made at the conclusion of CBP Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate investigations (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. U.S., CIT # 23-00140).
The government was right to say that a Chinese brick importer’s magnesia alumina graphite bricks were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks from China, a petitioner argued in a case regarding the quantity of alumina needed to exempt magnesia alumina graphite bricks from duties (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).
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 found substantial evidence that Minth Mexico Coatings (MMC) evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering aluminum extrusions from China. CBP, in an Enforce and Protect Act notice of determination dated Feb. 27, said that MMC imported the aluminum extrusions from Chinese suppliers and transshipped them through Mexico, failing to declare the automotive parts as subject to the AD/CVD orders.
U.S. importer CVB filed a complaint March 8 at the Court of International Trade claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly excluded importer Zinus' metal and wood platform beds from the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China (CVB v. U.S., CIT # 24-00036).
A petitioner in antidumping and countervailing duty cases on chassis from China that later began to import vehicle chassis from Vietnam said the Commerce Department was misapplying the scope of its orders on Chinese chassis from China that it itself had requested (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 4 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
CBP didn't prematurely suspend liquidation of two entries prior to the beginning of an Enforce and Protect Act investigation, the agency said in a newly released ruling. The ruling, dated Jan. 3, denied a protest from Crude Chem Technology, which had argued that CBP was required by law to extend liquidation on the entries, not suspend it.
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).