Importer Alleges Due Process Violations in EAPA Case on Mobile Access Equipment
CBP unlawfully initiated an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion investigation more than 15 days after receiving an allegation of duty evasion and imposed interim measures in violation of importer Sinoboom North America's due process rights, Sinoboom argued in a Dec. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Sinoboom North America v. United States, CIT # 25-00876).
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 importer was the subject of an Enforce and Protect Act investigation on whether the company evaded the AD/CVD orders on Chinese mobile access equipment. According to the allegation, and CBP's eventual findings, Sinoboom skirted the duties by sending Chinese mobile access equipment to Poland, where the importer's affiliate, Sinoboom Poland, "performed minor assembly of subject" goods and exported them to the U.S.
The evasion allegation was filed on Dec. 20, 2023, yet CBP didn't acknowledge its receipt of the allegation until June 4, 2024. The agency then didn't initiate the investigation until June 26, 2024. The statute, 19 U.S.C. 1517(b)(1), says CBP shall initiate an AD/CVD evasion investigation "[n]o later than 15 business days after receiving an allegation" if the agency finds that the allegation "reasonably suggests that covered merchandise has been entered into the customs territory of the United States through evasion."
Sinoboom argued that CBP is "statutorily mandated to initiate an EAPA investigation within 15 business days after receiving an allegation." The agency's regulations define "date of receipt" of an allegation as the "date on which CBP provides an acknowledgment of receipt of an allegation containing all the information and certifications required [by regulation]."
The trade court recently found that this regulation is unlawful because it lets CBP extend the statutory deadline "for an unlimited period of time" (see 2511260060). Sinoboom echoed this argument, adding that CBP's "delayed acknowledgment of receipt" of the present evasion allegation was thus unlawful. The importer also said its claim is a "purely legal challenge," meaning it didn't have to raise the issue administratively.
Sinoboom's second argument is that CBP violated the company's due process rights by imposing interim measures without giving the importer the chance to "submit factual information or written arguments with knowledge of the ongoing investigation." Citing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Royal Brush Mfrg. v. U.S., the importer said importers are "entitled to procedural due process in EAPA investigations."
Thus, CBP's regulation, "19 C.F.R. § 165.15(d)(1), is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and was otherwise not in accordance with law because it 'by definition does not allow for a party under investigation to submit any evidence or offer any administrative arguments in its defense prior to when the temporary deprivation takes effect [through interim measures],'" the complaint said.