CBP Continues to Find that Importer Evaded AD/CVD on Chinese Cabinets
CBP continued to find on remand that importer Skyview Cabinet USA evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. After having the case returned to the agency following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., CBP allowed Skyview to submit rebuttal factual information to confidential information it didn't originally have access to, though it ultimately came to the same conclusion (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 Royal Brush, the Federal Circuit said that CBP must provide parties in Enforce and Protect Act investigations with access to the confidential business information used in the proceedings (see 2310230022). Since CBP failed to provide this access to Skyview, the Court of International Trade remanded the proceeding so CBP could give the importer access and allow it to submit rebuttal information (see 2306200059).
While the importer didn't submit any new factual information, it submitted written arguments which said that the company presented substantial evidence, including photos and videos from its foreign manufacturers, which the agency didn't review. Skyview said CBP had "already made up its mind" and that the administrative procedures were "a waste of time." Skyview claimed the actual country of origin of its goods was Malaysia and that it submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating so.
CBP said the importer "reiterates the same arguments that it made during the investigation and in litigation before the CIT." Nothing the company said relied on any new evidence and is merely an "attempt to relitigate its position," the agency claimed.
CBP went through each of Skyview's claims made against the sufficiency of the agency's evasion finding and said that the trade court already rejected each of them in its June 2023 decision.
For instance, Skyview claimed that CBP impermissibly relied on a report submitted by a third-party investigator who was paid by petitioner MasterBrand. The importer said originally the report was biased, and on remand, it attempted to refute the investigator's findings by claiming that the two photographs the investigator provided didn't adequately show the interior of foreign manufacturer Rowenda's facility.
"Skyview’s attempt to counter the investigator’s statements and photos with its own photo submission fails to move the needle," CBP said. As the trade court held, the only photos Skyview submitted of the Malaysian facility were "piecemeal and apparently originated from the otherwise unresponsive party, Rowenda Kitchen."