CBP Releases New Regulations on Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Evasion, Which Take Immediate Effect

Aug 22, 2016

Reading Time : 5 min

Background on AD/CV Duty Law and the Push for a Duty Evasion Investigation Process

AD/CV duty laws of the United States provide for increased duties on imported goods that the U.S. government, specifically the U.S. Department of Commerce, has found to have been sold into the United States at a price below a deemed fair value or has found to have benefited from certain subsidies conferred by a foreign government, respectively. In addition, in order to impose either duty, the U.S. International Trade Commission must find that the imported products have materially injured or threatened material injury to a domestic industry. CBP plays a significant role in the administration of AD/CV duties as it is the agency with responsibility for collecting cash deposits and final duties on imports of merchandise subject to an AD/CV duty order (referred to herein and in the regulations as “covered merchandise”).

In the past, domestic parties have repeatedly complained that CBP failed to respond to AD/CV duty evasion allegations. In addition, domestic parties have noted that, due to the lack of formal procedures, the agency’s means of dealing with duty evasion suffered from a lack of transparency. Before the Act, CBP did not have to give parties who alleged evasion an opportunity to participate in the investigation or notify such parties about the results of CBP’s review of the allegation.

Summary of the New Regulations on Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Evasion

The Act, and the newly released interim regulations, seek to address this concern. While the Act essentially established a process for investigating AD/CV duty evasion claims, the new regulations provide more details on how the procedure will unfold and how the interested parties must respond. CBP has issued the regulations under an entirely new part of 19 C.F.R., Part 165.

To start, the interim rule clarifies that any “interested party,” can submit an allegation of AD/CV duty evasion through CBP’s e-Allegations system. Interested parties include U.S. manufacturers, producers and wholesalers of domestic like products, as well as foreign manufacturers, producers or exporters of covered merchandise, importers of covered merchandise, a U.S. certified union engaged in the manufacture, production or wholesale of a domestic like product, and trade associations that primarily represent any of the above groups. The regulations also prescribe what type of information the allegation must include. For example, the allegation needs to include reasonably available information to support its allegation.

Notably, the regulations clarify that the information that parties provide to CBP during the investigation will become a part of CBP’s administrative record and may become public. This requirement applies to, amongst other things, allegations, submission of factual information to CBP (e.g., in response to CBP requests), written arguments that the parties provide, and summaries of oral discussions with the interested parties. Interested parties may request business confidential treatment, but, if doing so, they will also have to create a public version for CBP’s record and for the other parties in the investigation. This part of the regulations is notable since, for the most part, CBP’s administrative review of other violations does not become part of a public record. The regulations also provide that any submission of information to CBP during an investigation must contain a certification that all statements in the submission are accurate and true to the best of the submitter’s knowledge and belief. Any material false statements made in a submission may be subject to adverse inferences (described below) and prosecution.

After the submission and receipt of a properly filed allegation, CBP has 15 business days to determine whether to initiate an investigation, based on whether the allegation reasonably suggests evasion and whether the merchandise in the allegation is properly within the scope of an AD/CV duty order. If the agency does not proceed with an investigation, it has an obligation to notify the alleging party within five business days of that determination. According to CBP’s notice, any decision to not investigate is not challengeable.

If CBP decides to initiate an investigation, it generally has 300 calendar days after the date of initiation of the investigation to determine whether the covered merchandise entered by means of evasion. CBP has discretion to extend the time by no more than 60 calendar days for specified extraordinary circumstances.

CBP has broad authority under the regulations and the statute to issue questionnaires and conduct on-site verifications. Parties must strictly follow CBP’s deadlines for responding to requests for information and seek extensions at least three business days before the time limit expires. Considering the strict timetables that CBP must follow under the Act, it is reasonable to conclude that CBP may not grant extensions on a liberal basis. Notably, if the party that filed the allegation or the importer, foreign producer or exporter of the covered merchandise fails to cooperate and comply with CBP’s requests, CBP may apply an adverse inference to the detriment of that party in the investigation. Therefore, the failure to respond could help lead CBP to determine that evasion has or has not occurred.

CBP also has the authority, no later than 90 calendar days after initiating an investigation, to issue interim measures if there is a reasonable suspicion that the importer entered covered merchandise through evasion. CBP can, for example, suspend the liquidation of each unliquidated entry of covered merchandise that entered on or after the date of the initiation of the investigation and require the posting of a cash deposit or single transaction bond to protect the revenue of the United States. Notably, the regulations provide that CBP will issue notification of its decision to initiate an investigation to all parties to the investigation no later than 95 calendar days after that decision has been made and no later than five business days after taking interim measures. Therefore, it seems that CBP could suspend liquidation of an importer’s entries and require the posting of additional security before that party obtains notification of the initiation of an investigation.

Once CBP has made its determination on evasion, it shall notify the parties to the investigation within five business days. The parties have an opportunity to appeal if they disagree with the outcome. They can request an administrative review by CBP and, subsequently, judicial review. These requests fall under strict deadlines, and the regulations clarify that untimely or incomplete requests for administrative review will not be accepted under any condition.

Importer’s and Interested Parties’ Takeaways from the New Regulations

Importers need to prepare themselves for a likely uptick in allegations of AD/CV duty evasions by competitors, both domestic and foreign. Considering the strict timetables and documentary requirements that these procedures establish, it is imperative that importers know their obligations under the law and know how and when they respond. Importers and interested parties should also be prepared to take advantages of some of the benefits of the new regulations. For example, the regulations provide for the chance to present written arguments to CBP. Parties which have been alleged as evading duties can use this opportunity to petition the agency with their defenses. Perhaps, most importantly, these new rules and the statutory mandate on CBP to investigate allegations will almost certainly bring an increase in enforcement. As such, importers and other relevant parties need to take reasonable steps to verify the nature of their imported merchandise and ensure, to the best of their ability, that they are not inadvertently evading AD/CV duties. Akin Gump has an experienced trade remedies and customs practice which can collectively assist importers and other interested parties in navigating this highly detailed administrative procedure.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Akin Trade Law

February 9, 2023

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2023-01-26

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2023-01-17

On December 21, 2022, the appeal arbitrators in the Colombia – Frozen Fries (DS591) World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute circulated their award (the “Award”). This was the second appeal conducted under Article 25 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the first appeal under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), a framework created by a group of WTO members to overcome the challenges posed by the non-operational Appellate Body.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2022-02-10

The United Kingdom just issued a new statutory instrument, effective immediately, which extends the authority to designate persons and entities under the U.K. sanctions against Russia.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2020-06-10

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin Gump’s webinar, “Protecting the Crown Jewels - New U.K. National Security Rules for Foreign Investment in a Post-COVID-19, Post-Brexit World.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2020-05-07

The clock is ticking down to the entry into force of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2020.  Leading up to that date, businesses have a unique advocacy opportunity to influence the implementing regulations and associated processes, such as legislative changes to Mexico’s domestic laws. Additionally, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), along with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts, have begun issuing guidance for the trade community seeking to obtain the benefits of the agreement. At this time, these guidance documents include a petition process for automakers to request alternative staging for the automotive rules of origin as well as general interim implementation instructions for USMCA entries. Still to come are regulations regarding the automotive labor value content requirements and Uniform Regulations regarding the customs provisions. Akin Gump and our partners at Dorantes Advisors in Mexico City have jointly developed brief summaries of these guidance documents and a timeline of key actions still to take place prior to entry into force. The materials are available here in both English and Spanish.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2020-03-02

Last week, in a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) concluded that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 does not offend the non-delegation doctrine. To most observers, the ruling does not come as a surprise, but the story on Section 232 and the non-delegation doctrine is not yet over.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.