CBP Evasion Finding Based on Hearsay, Cabinet Importer Tells Trade Court
CBP's finding that Skyview Cabinet evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on wooden cabinets and vanities from China was unsupported by evidence and based on hearsay, and improperly added full supply chain assessment requirements, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a March 10 complaint (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
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.
In the Enforce and Protect Act investigation, CBP relied in part on submissions from petitioner Masterbrand to find that Skyview evaded the AD/CVD orders by transshipping the entries through Malaysia. In its complaint, Skyview said that this conclusion was based on hearsay from Masterbrand.
"Concerning the truthfulness, reasonableness, credibility, probative value, reliability, and fairness, the Plaintiff posit that a reasonable mind could determine that the statements (including those secret) are not inherently reliable and are biased towards, prejudice against, and is adverse to the Plaintiff," the complaint said.
In the investigation, CBP made adverse inferences against Skyview since certain information was not submitted by Malaysian manufacturer Rowenda Kitchen. Based on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent, the U.S. can apply adverse inferences against a party that can but doesn't use its relationship with a related party to fill gaps in the record. Skyview argued that this rule is not applicable to its situation since it is unable to get Rowenda to submit the requested information. "Simply put, CBP cannot an make an adverse inference to an importer where the importer is powerless in inducing a shipper to produce records," the complaint said.
Skyview also argued that CBP failed to prove that any component of its wooden cabinets and vanities were of Chinese origin and that any Malaysian components substantially transformed its products into products of Chinese origin. "Instead, CBP seemed to rely on 'some' business confidential information out of the purview of Skyview in stating that 'some evidence presented that some operations may have been performed in Malaysia with respect to components imported from China' or that Skyview somehow admitted that all components were sourced from China," the complaint said.