CBP Granted Voluntary Remand in Aluminum Extrusions EAPA Case at Trade Court
The U.S. was granted a voluntary remand in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion case at the Court of International Trade. In its motion requesting the remand, CBP told the court that a remand is needed in light of arguments by the plaintiffs that the evasion finding is based on insufficient evidence. In particular, DOJ said that CBP needed to address logistical gaps in the feasibility of an alleged transshipment scheme and criticism of perceived inconsistencies in the materials submitted by the importers and the company accused of transshipping. Each of the three plaintiffs' counsel consented to the move (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00198).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
"We are encouraged by the remand, but at this juncture, we obviously do not know what CBP will do on remand," Lizbeth Levinson, counsel for plaintiff Hialeah Aluminum Supply, said in an email. "We await the new decision."
The case, brought by importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah, then later joined by Dominican manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio, contests an Enforce and Protect Act investigation regarding aluminum extrusions from China found to have been transshipped through the Dominican Republic. The plaintiffs have all filed motions for judgment, arguing that both CBP's Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate and its Office of Regulations and Rulings failed to make a factual finding when it said that Global Aluminum and Hialeah committed evasion (see 2202160041).
The plaintiffs said that CBP skirted the evidentiary standard, instead basing its conclusion on a vague reference to Kingtom's ties to China and discrepancies between the importers' and Kingtom's records. Kingtom is owned and operated by Chinese nationals. CBP's ORR concurred with TRLED's assessment, relying on the discrepancies between the importers' and Kingtom's submissions and Kingtom's ties to China to support the evasion finding. ORR also said that since Kingtom did not operate at 100% capacity, it could rely on the nationality of Kingtom's owners as evidence.
CBP said that concerns raised by the plaintiffs warranted the voluntary remand motion. "The briefing also explains in detail Kingtom’s production capacity and extrusion equipment, the nature of Kingtom’s relationship with its owners and suppliers, and the commonalities among the site visits to Kingtom’s facility," the brief said. "As a result of the plaintiffs’ and Kingtom’s arguments regarding the record evidence, CBP respectfully requests that it be afforded the opportunity to reevaluate the record evidence in light of these arguments and to reconsider its finding of evasion." CBP is requesting 60 days to file a new determination.