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.”
James Holbein, of counsel at Braumiller Law Group, was appointed to the roster of people available to serve on the USMCA Chapter 10 panels, the firm announced in an April 20 news release. The Chapter 10 panels are established at the request of industry seeking alternative courts to adjudicate antidumping and countervailing duty matters.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission April 23 released the following notices, set for Federal Register publication April 26, on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The Department of Homeland Security recently posted CBP reports on antidumping and countervailing duty enforcement actions for fiscal years 2019 and 2018. DHS posted both reports April 15, though the FY 2019 report is dated Nov. 13, 2020, and the FY 2018 report is dated Dec. 12, 2019.
The Commerce Department on April 23 released an antidumping duty order on seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe from the Czech Republic (A-851-804). AD duty rates were unchanged from Commerce’s final determinations, ranging from 51.07% to 51.7%. The 51.7% rate for both mandatory respondents was based on adverse facts available because of the mandatory respondents’ lack of participation, and the all-others rate based on a simple average of the dumping margins alleged in the petition. The order details a short three-day gap period, with the provisional measures period running four months from the Dec. 21 AD duty preliminary determination (unextended to six months). The International Trade Commission also published its final injury determination April 23.
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.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 23 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
Two Chinese exporters are set to face a high 541.94% countervailing duty rate based on their alleged lack of cooperation, said the Commerce Department in the preliminary results of an administrative review on solar cells from China published April 23. Solarchina did not cooperate in the review, and Taichang did not obtain a full questionnaire response from its parent company, causing Commerce to set a CV duty rate for the two companies as if they benefited from every program examined for all respondents during the administrative review.
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 Department of Justice and defendant-intervenor American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance moved to strike part of Chinese cabinet exporter's argument in an antidumping case, claiming the exporter included a new argument in a court filing that was not part of the underlying investigation. In dual April 22 motions to strike in the Court of International Trade, both DOJ and the AKCA said the argument by the exporter, The Ancientree Cabinet Co., over the proper classification of its inputs for wooden cabinets and vanities in selecting surrogate values for an antidumping investigation from a nonmarket economy was not raised during oral argument. A lawyer associated with the case confirmed Ancientree will file a response to the motion to strike.