Customs Duty

The Court of International Trade ruled that the Commerce Department improperly applied adverse facts available to Chinese ribbon exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. in a countervailing duty administrative review. In an April 30 opinion, Judge Timothy Stanceu found that Commerce did not consider record evidence fairly when determining whether Yama received a subsidy from the Export Buyer's Credit Program from the Export-Import Bank of China. Remanding the case, Stanceu also held that Commerce failed again to consider all relevant record evidence in its decision to include subsidy rates to inputs of synthetic yarn and caustic soda in the CVD review.

The Department of Justice wants an entry of plywood imported from China scratched from a customs challenge in the Court of International Trade by BRAL Corporation, since the importer failed to file a protest against the entry's liquidation (BRAL Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00154). In a May 3 memo in support of a partial motion to dismiss, DOJ said the entry, one of 12 in dispute in the case, was reliquidated twice by CBP as the agency attempted to sort out the antidumping and countervailing duties applicable to the plywood imports. Since BRAL did not protest the second reliquidation, yet challenges it in court anyway, the entry should be dismissed from the case for lack of jurisdiction, DOJ said.

A company must be able to prove that prices weren't distorted for transactions involving non-market economies (NMEs) when claiming first sale treatment, the Department of Justice said in an April 29 Court of International Trade filing (Imperia Trading, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 15-00142). DOJ's argument relies on a recent CIT decision involving imported Meyer cookware that said the involvement of Chinese companies made it difficult to determine whether a transaction is affected by non-market influence (see 2104200075). DOJ made the filing as part of a dispute over whether Imperia Trading, an importer of apparel made in China, can use the sale from a Hong Kong middleman company for appraisement.

The Court of International Trade granted the Justice Department's request for a voluntary remand in the antidumping duty investigation on polyethylene terephthalate sheet from Oman, in an April 30 order. OCTAL says it was not given the chance to comment during the investigation on a Commerce determination that the exporter was affiliated with one of its customers. OCTAL also said the trade court should give Commerce greater than 90 days for the remand in order to reopen the record in the investigation to account for new information. DOJ agreed that the case should be remanded, but not to an extension of the 90-day deadline to reopen the record. CIT's order says the remand must be filed within 90 days.

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 27 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):

CBP can still collect unpaid antidumping duties on a customs bond despite waiting nearly eight years after the relevant entries liquidated before demanding payment, the Justice Department said in a brief filed April 23. Aegis Security Insurance Co., which acted as surety on 10 entries of fresh garlic from China that was deemed liquidated 2006, says the statute of limitations had expired on the bond by the time CBP billed Aegis for the full continuous bond amount, $50,000, in 2014. “Because a customs bond is a contract, the [Federal Circuit] has held that a cause of action to enforce its obligations accrues when the terms of the bond are breached,” DOJ said. “In this case, the terms of the bond at issue were not breached by Aegis until CBP made a demand for payment against Aegis and Aegis failed to pay the duties within the time required by law.”

Polyethylene terephthalate sheet exporter OCTAL, Inc. filed a motion April 21 with the Court of International Trade in support of the Department of Justice's move to voluntarily remand an antidumping duty investigation, but called for additional time to for the Commerce Department to reconsider the case. OCTAL says the standard 90-day period of remand is not long enough, arguing Commerce should reopen the record to obtain additional information on the central claim in the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products in the massive Section 301 litigation’s sample case moved April 23 in the U.S. Court of International Trade for a “protective preliminary injunction” to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated customs entries imported from China with Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. The Akin Gump motion on behalf of HMTX-Jasco came days before the court’s three-judge panel convenes a status conference in which plaintiffs are expected to air their demands for stipulated refunds of all liquidated entries if they prevail in the litigation.

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.

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.