The Court of International Trade stayed all proceedings in a case against 14 individuals for a scheme to evade antidumping and countervailing duties until criminal charges also levied against eight of the defendants are settled, in an April 22 procedural order. The defendants allegedly evaded duties on off-the-road tires, passenger vehicle and light truck tires and truck and bus tires from China. The case in CIT has the government seeking $20.9 million in penalties for customs fraud and $5.6 million in unpaid duties for the eight individuals with criminal charges, as well as six other defendants and the Houston-based company Winland International, which does business as Super Tire. The Section 1582 penalty case alternatively seeks $12.5 million in penalties and $2.2 million in unpaid duties for gross negligence.
Court of International Trade activity
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Wood importer Richmond International Forest Products launched a challenge in the Court of International Trade claiming its imports of hardwood plywood from Cambodia were erroneously deemed to be of Chinese origin by CBP. In an April 21 complaint, RIFP said its imports were improperly hit with antidumping and countervailing duties, Section 301 tariffs, Merchandise Processing Fees and additional Harbor Maintenance Fee. In addition, RIFP claims that CBP's failure to consider what it sees as key evidence violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the importer's Fifth Amendment rights of due process.
CBP's process for carrying out Enforce and Protect Act investigations could eventually be found by the courts to be unconstitutional, trade lawyers Jen Diaz and David Craven of Diaz Trade Law said during an April 21 webinar. The EAPA investigations, which seek to determine if a company evaded antidumping or countervailing duty orders, are mostly secret and do not inform entities if they are being investigated or what evidence stands against them.
The Court of International Trade's newest judge, Stephen Vaden, issued his first opinion with the court on April 21, dismissing tire importer Strategic Import Supply's challenge of CBP's assessment of countervailing duties on its imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Vaden found that the importer's protest was filed too late, holding the 180-day deadline for protests runs from the date of liquidation, rather than the date CBP received updated assessment instructions from Commerce after Commerce amended rates set in the relevant CV duty administrative review.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Department of Justice continued to raise jurisdictional issues in support for a motion to dismiss a challenge from steel exporter Voestalpine USA and importer Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel seeking a refund of Section 232 duties paid on steel entries in the Court of International Trade. In an April 19 filing, the DOJ challenged the jurisdiction of Voestalpine and Bilstein's challenge while pointing out that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a refund on the duties paid since they forgot to complete one key step in the tariff exclusion process -- alerting CBP that the Commerce Department issued an exclusion in the first place.
The Court of International Trade's newest judge, Stephen Vaden, issued his first opinion with the court on April 21, dismissing tire importer Strategic Import Supply's challenge of CBP's assessment of countervailing duties on its imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China.
The Commerce Department continued on course in a remand redetermination on cold-rolled steel from South Korea submitted to the Court of International Trade April 19. The agency offered further explanation in response to a December 2020 Federal Circuit decision that struck down aspects of its final determination in the original CV duty investigation on cold-rolled steel, but did not make any changes to its findings to address concerns over a finding that electricity offered at less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) was not a countervailable subsidy. The Federal Circuit had remanded because Commerce had purportedly relied on its old “preferentiality” standard, and failed to address a second South Korean electricity producer.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: