CIT Sides With Importer in Dispute Over CBP Application of AD Duties
The Court of International Trade on June 19 overturned CBP’s application of antidumping duties on imports of steel electrical conduit, finding the agency wrongly interpreted the scope of an AD duty order on circular welded pipe from China. The government had disputed the importer’s ability to challenge a CBP decision related to AD duties, arguing that Puerto Rico-based LDA Incorporado should have filed suit against the Commerce Department’s scope instructions instead. But with the fact not in dispute that Commerce’s scope instructions exempted LDA’s product, CIT found the importer’s issue was clearly with CBP’s incorrect interpretation and ordered the entries reliquidated.
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.
CIT had already declined to dismiss the case in May 2014, finding that LDA had the right to challenge CBP directly on its scope issues, rather than file suit against Commerce (see 14051403). The scope of the order on Chinese circular welded pipe lists “finished electrical conduit” as exempt form AD duties. CBP had found the LDA’s conduit was not “finished electrical conduit” because it did not have an insulating interior coating, despite evidence from LDA that the product complied with ANSI and UL finished conduit standards.
Once again, CIT found CBP took an affirmative, protestable action to find LDA’s conduit was within the scope of AD duties, and based on the facts of the case held CBP was incorrect. Despite the government’s claim that LDA’s dispute was with the scope of the order, the scope “specifically excludes ‘finished electrical conduit,’” she said. LDA “does not challenge the reach of the scope,” said Kelly. Rather, LDA “merely claims that its merchandise is, and always has been, finished electrical conduit.”
(LDA Incorporado v. U.S., Slip Op. 15-64, CIT # 12-00349, dated 06/19/15, Judge Kelly)
(Attorneys: Ronald Wisla of Kutak Rock for plaintiff LDA Incorporado; Beverly Farrell for defendant U.S. government)