CBB Finds No Evasion of Aluminum Extrusions After Voluntary Remand
CBP is reversing its finding that six companies evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, after finding it did not consider important evidence when it affirmed the original evasion finding in an administrative review, in remand results filed Jan. 4 at the Court of International Trade (H&E Home Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT # 21-00337).
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.
CBP originally determined that the six importers had evaded AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusions in a January 2021 determination, and affirmed its finding by way of an administrative review in June 2021. CBP found that the importers entered Chinese-origin aluminum extrusions that were either commingled or transshipped through the Dominican Republic by misrepresenting the country of origin. The importers appealed the decision and filed three separate suits, which were later consolidated.
In August, the government asked for a voluntary remand in order to provide the parties with summaries of confidential information, consider documents accidentally omitted from the record, and to revisit evidence in light of CBP's remand determination in another evasion action. Judge Richard Eaton granted the remand motion on Sept. 7, saying that CBP wished "to ensure its regulations governing procedures were followed and to reconsider the correctness of its decision after voluntary remand in a similar case ultimately led to a different result" (see 2209080013).
In its remand results, CBP said that it inadvertently left out documents for the administrative review, including entry data, CBP Form 28 responses, and record evidence from Enforce and Protect Act Case No. 7348, which contained "almost identical" facts. The omission resulted in three separate motions for leave to supplement the record, which were all granted by the court.
The administrative review "focused primarily on some alleged discrepancies in the documentation provided ... while disregarding the remaining record evidence," CBP said in its explanation of the reversal. "[U]pon further review of the administrative record, we find that our focus on the claimed discrepancies was misplaced, and that substantial evidence on the record as a whole does not support a finding of evasion."