The Commerce Department permissibly relied on total adverse facts available in an antidumping case in light of the Court of International Trade's orders, the Department of Justice argued in July 30 final comments on Commerce's remand results. The respondent, Hung Vuong Group, attempted to submit new factual information in the case before the remand was filed, but no such authority exists for this submission to be accepted, DOJ said (Hung Vuong Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).
Customs Duty
A Customs Duty is a tariff or tax which a country imposes on goods when they are transported across international borders. Customs Duties are used to protect countries' economies, residents, jobs, and environments, by limiting the flow of imported merchandise, especially restricted and prohibited goods, into the country. The Customs Duty Rate is a percentage determined by the value of the article purchased in the foreign country and not based on quality, size, or weight.
The Commerce Department on Aug. 2 continued to find affiliation between the lone respondent in an antidumping duty investigation and one of its U.S. customers after voluntarily remanding the case to consider comments from the respondent. After clearing this procedural hurdle, Commerce maintained this determination in its remand results, accounting for the finding in the duty margin calculation using neutral facts available (OCTAL, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03697).
An Enforce and Protect Act investigation into alleged antidumping or countervailing duty evasion by a cabinet importer didn't produce evidence that the evasion was happening, CBP said in a July 21 notice of determination. The investigation involved BGI Group, which does business as U.S. Cabinet Depot and was alleged to have shipped wooden cabinet and vanities (WCV) "subject to the AD/CVD Orders to Cambodian company Cambodia Golden Coast Wood Products Co., Ltd." for "repackaging and exporting the Chinese-origin merchandise to BGI." Based on the information on the record of the investigation, "including the absence of sufficient additional evidence of evasion obtained subsequent to the [notice of investigation], CBP finds that substantial evidence does not exist that BGI entered into the customs territory of the United States WCV manufactured in China that had been transshipped through Cambodia during the period of this EAPA investigation."
Stargate Apparel, Rivstar Apparel and their former owner and CEO, Joseph Bailey, settled a False Claims Act case with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York over the companies' use of inaccurate invoices to underreport their clothing imports, the Department of Justice said July 28. Under the settlement, Bailey and the New York-headquartered companies admitted to engaging in the fraudulent schemes. Bailey will pay $3.2 million while the employee stock ownership plan that owns the two companies will pay a combined $2.8 million, DOJ said. Bailey and the companies led two “double invoicing” schemes 2004-2015, according to the complaint.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 28 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 23 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Greenlight Organic accused the U.S. government of invoking various "evasive tactics" in avoiding providing sufficient answers to the company's requests for admissions (RFAs) in a Court of International Trade case over the importer's alleged misclassification of imports to skirt duties. In a July 23 motion to compel the U.S. to respond to Greenlight's 116 RFAs, the importer wants the court to force the government to issue responses and overturn its objections that the requests were "incoherent and prevented a meaningful response" (United States v. Greenlight Organic, Inc. et al., CIT #17-00031).
All customs entries from China with Section 301 lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure not yet liquidated as of the U.S. Court of International Trade's July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order freezing liquidations would liquidate "in the ordinary course" and be refunded to the plaintiff importers at the end of the litigation if they win, Akin Gump lawyers proposed July 20 for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products. Akin Gump seized on the proposal after DOJ lawyers at a status conference July 15 opened the door a crack to the possibility they would support a refund stipulation after months of refusing to do so.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 20 backed the Commerce Department's initial decision to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty, saying it was supported by substantial evidence. Reversing a ruling from the Court of International Trade, the appellate court held that CIT erred in backing Commerce into adjusting the post-sale price by the entirety of the penalty cost since the customer was not aware of the methodology by which the amount of the penalty was to be determined. The decision brought the antidumping margin for mandatory respondent Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Vicaret's above de minimis to 5.11%.
An amicus brief from a group of domestic agricultural goods producers reared its head in a second case over when the six-year limitations period begins for a customs bond. A group of surety associations should not be able to argue in the case due to their role in "abetting the new shipper bond disaster," the producers argued in their July 16 amicus brief that was granted permission to be filed in the case (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).