CBP Evasion Determination on Imported Plywood Should Be Dismissed, Importer Says
CBP and the Commerce Department engaged in several abuses of discretion in a prolonged Enforce and Protect Act investigation into alleged evasion of hardwood plywood, InterGlobal Forest (IGF) said in an Aug. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade. IGF contests a January EAPA decision that found evidence of evasion and the June decision by CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings that affirmed it (InterGlobal Forest v. United States, CIT # 22-00240).
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 underlying antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China date back to 2018. In July of that year, Plywood Source alleged IGF and four other importers were evading the AD and CVD orders by importing Chinese-origin hardwood plywood and falsely declaring it to be of Vietnamese origin.
In August 2018, CBP initiated separate EAPA investigations into the other importers, consolidating those cases with IGF's in November. In September 2019, CBP notified the importers that it was unable to determine if some of the merchandise was within the scope of the orders. In December 2019, IGF and two other importers sued, arguing that CBP failed to conclude its investigation within the statutory time frame provided. The case was dismissed in July 2020, with the court ruling that the EAPA investigation must be finished before the court has jurisdiction (see 2007310052).
In January 2022, Commerce issued its scope ruling, which concluded that processing of Chinese-origin two-ply panels in Vietnam into hardwood plywood did not substantially transform the panel, and that plywood produced by Finewood in Vietnam using Chinese two-ply panels remained Chinese-origin for purposes of the orders. CBP then issued its evasion determination, concluding that IGF and the other Importers evaded the AD/CVD orders.
IGF argued in a separate ongoing case on Aug. 16 that Commerce abused its discretion by finding ambiguity in the scope language where there was none and accused CBP and Commerce of a "transparent ruse" designed to allow CBP to claim that the specific two-ply panels used by Finewood constituted “covered merchandise" and extend the timeline (see 2208170038).
The company argued that CBP and Commerce committed a litany of errors over the course of the investigation that add up to arbitrary abuses of discretion. In addition to contesting the underlying facts of the investigation, IGF argued that the scope ruling and various delays violate the statutes governing the timeliness of EAPA proceedings. The company also said that it was not allowed to participate in the parallel investigations before consolidation, to see the evidence and defend against the alleger’s allegations, which it has never seen. CBP based its reasoning on evidence later found to not be probative or which was not properly placed on the administrative record, IGF said.
CBP admitted in its original determination that it never independently confirmed the accuracy of alleger-provided data and merely accepted it at face value, IGF said. Additionally, because the AD/CVD orders did cover hardwood plywood made in Vietnam without Chinese two-ply panels until the scope ruling, CBP's finding that IGF entered merchandise by means of “material and false” statements is incorrect, it said.