CBP Evasion Finding Based on Hearsay, Cabinet Importer Tells Trade Court
CBP's findings in its Enforce and Protect Act investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China were arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, Skyview Cabinet said in a July 18 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. "Simply put, CBP failed in its investigation duty, believing that it was confronted with evidence of basic transshipments,” Skyview said (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.
The case was brought in response to CBP's affirmative final determination in the EAPA evasion case. In its September 2021 determination, CBP found that Skyview, along with three other companies, evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities and components thereof from China (see 2109300059).
Skyview filed suit at CIT in March, arguing that CBP can't "make an adverse inference to an importer where the importer is powerless in inducing a shipper to produce records," in its complaint (see 2203140022.
In its motion for judgment, Skyview says that CBP unlawfully relied on hearsay in its substantial evidence determination, that the agency did not follow all EAPA procedures, and that it made a country of origin determination without conferring with Commerce as required. Further, CBP failed to notify it of detracting evidence and did not release business confidential information for Skyciew to review, the company said. CBP then "erroneously shifted the burden of proof to Skyview" and made adverse inferences against Skyview because a third party, Malaysian manufacturer Rowenda Kitchen, did not respond to information requests.
CBP failed to list the various discrepancies and omissions that it says were relevant to a country of origin analysis, Skyview said. Contrary to CBP's finding, Skyview said it provided "a volume of documentation from Rowenda to be used in making 'substantial evidence' determinations," the motion said. "Even where Skyview connected the dots from purchase order information to the shipment, CBP simply disregarded documentation provided."
Skyview asked Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden to order that CBP’s covered merchandise determination, "substantial evidence," and other evasion determinations were unlawful, rule that CBP failed fully to comply with EAPA statute procedures, that Skyview was denied procedural due process, to remand the matter back to CBP and award Skyview judgment for costs.