CIT Orders Importer Penalty for False Statements on AD/CVD Entry
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 6 ordered an importer to pay over $15,000 in penalties for evading antidumping duties (here). NYCC 1959 allegedly imported candles subject to the AD duty order on petroleum wax candles from China, but indicated on entry documentation that the merchandise was not subject to any antidumping duties. The company didn’t respond to the government’s allegations in court within 60 days of the filing of the government’s complaint, so CIT found the company in “default” and automatically found the government’s allegations were true.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The government argued NYCC’s actions were grossly negligent, defined by CIT as “behavior that is willful, wanton or reckless, or demonstrates an utter lack of care.” Penalties for gross negligence are higher than those for negligence (though generally lower than for fraud), reaching up to the lesser of the domestic value of the merchandise or four times the unpaid duties, taxes and fees. CIT agreed with the government, noting NYCC had twice previously attempted to enter Chinese candles from the same manufacturer without paying antidumping duties, and had both entries rate advanced after CBP testing. CIT found the government’s requested penalty amount fell within the guidelines for gross negligence, and ordered NYCC to pay a penalty of $15,310.08, plus interest.
(U.S. v. NYCC 1959 Inc., Slip Op. 15-13, CIT # 14-00045, dated 02/06/15, Judge Pogue)