Steel Hanger Importer Seeks to Quash Subpoena in Duty Evasion Case
Steel hanger importer Zhe “John” Liu moved Oct. 28 to quash a subpoena intended for another party, Chen Liu, who he said hadn’t been served and was currently out of the country (United States v. Zhe “John” Liu, CIT #s 22-00215, 23-00116, 24-00132).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
In another motion, the U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Oct. 24 to grant a motion to compel John Liu, who faces multiple duty evasion cases, to amend his answer to the government’s complaint in its 2024 case. It previously sought the same in its 2023 case (see 2509290059).
John Liu said that the subpoena was issued on Oct. 24, 2025, requesting both documents and Chen Liu’s attendance at a virtual deposition scheduled for Oct. 28. Discovery for this matter, however, closes on Oct. 31. That meant the subpoena had been issued without providing “a reasonable time to comply,” he said.
Chen Liu is currently out of the country and so hasn’t been served, he said. Further, the subpoena didn’t give Chen Liu enough time to track down any documents, he said.
“Simply put, the United States had more than enough time prior to the discovery deadline to conduct this deposition and request this production, but delayed in doing so,” he said.
The government’s motion, on the other hand, asked John Liu to “substantively respond” to its complaint.
John Liu’s initial answer repeated multiple times that he “neither admits nor denies” an allegation, it said, and John Liu stated to each that he objected to the allegation “as being immaterial as this entity was not involved with these transactions.”
But an answer must either admit or deny the assertions in each paragraph, the government said.
It said it wasn’t seeking to strike John Liu’s responses, but rather simply to ascertain which issues were actually in dispute.