Imported Line Pipe Outside AD/CVD Scope, Couldn't Have Evaded Duties, Importer Says
CBP's EAPA determination that Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded an antidumping duty order was incorrect because the Commerce Department has since ruled the imported line pipe outside the scope of the order, Blue Pipe said in a Dec. 14 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).
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.
Blue Pipe asked the court to hold that CBP's determination of evasion was incorrect and that it be remanded to CBP with instructions to reconsider its determination in light of the amended scope ruling. Alternatively, should the court find that the evasion determination was lawful, Blue Pipe requested that CIT reject CBP’s decision to apply that determination to entries made before Commerce initiated its scope inquiry.
The case stems from a 2020 EAPA determination -- affirmed by CBP in 2021 -- that certain dual-stenciled pipe produced by Saha Thai Public Company Ltd. and imported by Blue Pipe had evaded the antidumping duty order on circular welded pipe from Thailand.
Before the conclusion of the EAPA investigation, the Commerce Department had self-initiated a scope inquiry on Saha Thai's dual-stenciled line pipe. Saha Thai argued the pipe was not standard pipe with minor alternations and so outside the scope of the AD order. Commerce disagreed and initially ruled that the pipe in question fell within the scope of the order. However, the agency reversed its determination in 2022 after Saha Thai successfully sued at the Court of International Trade. The case is currently on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (see 2209020053)
CBP’s EAPA determinations of Blue Pipe’s duty evasion relies heavily on Commerce's scope ruling, Blue Pipe said. Commerce amended its final ruling because of litigation at the same court and CBP relied on Commerce's original scope ruling as the "primary basis for its determinations," Blue Pipe argued. The change in Commerce’s position "fatally undermines the legitimacy of [that] determination," the importer said. "Review of CBP’s determinations should be based on the rationale presented ... not by any post hoc attempt to salvage its determinations," Blue Pipe argued.