CBP 's interim regulations set too high a standard for domestic producers to show evidence that "reasonably suggests" antidumping or countervailing duty evasion, the Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports said in comments to the agency (here). That's clear from CBP's decision not to act on the allegation submitted by Wheatland Tube (see 1610190029), the committee said. While Wheatland provided public import data, "CBP nevertheless required actual proof of evasion, which contradicts the minimal statutory evidentiary requirement for allegations," it said. That group and several others recently submitted comments (here) as part of CBP's request for comments on its interim regulations implementing the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) provisions (see 1608190014).
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Dec. 19-23 in case they were missed.
CBP allowed itself more discretion than statutorily allowed for deciding when to begin an investigation following submission of an antidumping or countervailing duty evasion allegation, law firm Kelley Drye said in comments to CBP (here). The firm submitted the comments as part of CBP's request for comments on its interim regulations implementing the Enforce and Protect Act provisions (see 1608190014). The interim rule gives CBP 15 days to decide whether to begin an investigation after the "date of receipt," which effectively "permits the agency an unlimited, and undefined, period of time to initiate an investigation," Kelley Drye said.
CBP is formally investigating Eastern Trading NY over allegations of antidumping duty evasions filed under CBP's new evasion enforcement processes (see 1608190014), the agency said in a "public version" of its notice to the company (here). The company is alleged to have evaded "the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from the People’s Republic of China," the agency said. "Interim measures apply because CBP determined that there is a reasonable suspicion that the importer entered covered merchandise into the customs territory of the United States through evasion," the agency said.
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
CBP is unlikely to make new adverse inferences about companies that are unaware of antidumping or countervailing duty evasion allegations and don't respond to information requests, said Carrie Owens, acting CBP director of operations for Enforce and Protect Act and E-Allegations. Owens discussed the EAPA procedures and the use of adverse inference (see 1608190014) during a panel at the East Coast Trade Symposium on Dec. 2. "If a party is not aware it is being requested information pursuant to an EAPA investigation, my personal view is I'm unsure how we would then apply an adverse inference to that," she said. That includes responsiveness to Customs Form 28 that CBP may issue as part of the investigation, Owens said.
CBP will begin accepting Enforce and Protect Act allegations of antidumping or countervailing duty evasion through its e-Allegations portal (here) in December, the agency said in an overview of investigations of such allegations (here). Since an interim final rule on the processes for investigation of AD/CV duty evasion went into effect (see 1608190014), CBP has accepted allegations through a dedicated email address. Instructions for allegation submissions through the portal are also now available (here). The overview also provides some insight into the agency's basis for deciding whether an allegation "reasonably suggests" evasion occurred, as required under EAPA. "Evidence of importation, without more evidence to show the type of evasion being alleged, is not sufficient to reasonably suggest evasion," the agency said. There's been some question about the specifics of that EAPA standard after CBP declined to investigate one of the first allegations submitted under the new procedures (see 1611210053).
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Nov. 21-25 in case they were missed.
NEW YORK -- Allegations of antidumping or countervailing duty evasion under CBP’s new Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) regulations must include a complete theory of evasion to trigger an investigation, said Carrie Owens, acting director of operations for CBP’s new EAPA division, at the Court of International Trade Judicial Conference on Nov. 21. Simply saying that prices are too low, AD/CVD rates are high or a product is being shipped through a third country, and concluding that evasion must be occurring, is not enough to meet CBP’s legal standard -- that an allegation “reasonably suggest” an importer is evading duties -- to trigger an EAPA investigation, she said.
Identifying information about an importer of record should not be a requirement for filing antidumping or countervailing duty evasion allegations with CBP, the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws (CSUSTL) said in comments to the agency (here). Such evasion often occurs through a "shell-game" of related companies, making identifying the formal importer of record very difficult, it said. The CSUSTL, largely made up of domestic producer representatives, filed the comments as part of CBP's effort to finalize AD/CV duty evasion allegation procedures at the agency under the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) (see 1608190014).