US Opposes Importers' Request for Leave to Add Due Process Claims in EAPA Case
The U.S. on Jan. 12 opposed a group of importers' bid to add two claims to their case challenging CBP's initiation of an Enforce and Protect Act duty evasion investigation as "untimely" and the interim measures imposed as a violation of the importers' due process rights (Centric Pipe v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00182).
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 government said it was adopting the reasoning of the petitioner, U.S. OCTG Manufacturers Association, who argued that the Court of International Trade shouldn't let the importers amend their complaint, since both counts would be dismissed for lack of standing and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (see 2601120048).
The case at issue concerns CBP's finding that 10 importers evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on oil country tubular goods from China (see 2508140025). While the importers' claims against the evasion finding principally focused on CBP's interpretation of the orders' scope, the companies sought to add two due process claims after CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves issued a decision in another EAPA case, Superior Commercial Solutions v. U.S.
In that case, Choe-Groves held that CBP's regulations regarding the notice provided to importers subject to EAPA investigations and when CBP must initiate those investigations violated an importer's due process rights (see 2511260060). The importers argued, among other things, that this decision represented a change in law.
The government opposed the importers' motion for leave to file amended complaints, adopting the petitioner's extensive arguments against the motion. However, the U.S. added that the present case differs from Superior Commercial, since the plaintiffs here "do not plead that they have suffered any injury by the failure to initiate an investigation within 15 days after the allegation was received." The importers "also do not plead any injury that they suffered as a result of not having received notification of Customs' investigation until interim measures were issued," the brief said.