Aluminum Extrusion Importer Files New EAPA Challenge With CIT
Aluminum extrusion importer Global Aluminum Distributor filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Enforce and Protect A investigations, becoming the latest to challenge the process for countering antidumping duty evasion. In an April 28 complaint, Global Aluminum said CBP's EAPA process violated procedural requirements and the importer's constitutional rights related to due process and excessive fines, and that CBP is unfairly subjecting a company to two EAPA investigations for the same conduct and entries. Separate from other EAPA complaints, Global Aluminum claims that the duties assessed via the evasion finding constitutes a violation of the Eight Amendment for excessive fines.
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.
Global Aluminum's conduct was originally put under the microscope by CBP when Ta Chen International Inc. filed an allegation with the agency that Global Aluminum, along with other importers, was evading antidumping duties on aluminum extrusions from China by way of a transshipment scheme involving Kingtom Aluminio SRL in the Dominican Republic. Allegedly, the aluminum extrusions were transshipped through the Dominican Republic to evade duties as opposed to being produced in the Caribbean nation, as Global Aluminum says. CBP subsequently issued an affirmative determination of evasion and denied Global Aluminum's request for an administrative review.
Throughout the proceedings, Global Aluminum claims to have been denied access to unredacted versions of Ta Chen's allegations. The importer, joining others who have filed similar challenges, said this violated its due process rights. Global Aluminum also argues that it, along with Kingtom, provided CBP with requested information, but that undue weight was given to the alleger. "CBP expressly stated that it would not consider certain arguments presented by the importers in the Administrative Review process, and to the extent that it did consider such issues, it barely addressed such issues," the complaint said. "CBP gave undue weight to evidence submitted by alleger and did not give proper weight to evidence provided by importers."
While CBP was investigating Global Aluminum for antidumping duty evasion, it rejected a request from the importer to consolidate the two EAPA investigations. "While CBP found an affirmative determination of evasion in EAPA 7348, the previous determination does not mean that CBP will automatically find evasion in a subsequent or related proceeding," CBP said in a Jan. 28 EAPA determination. "Rather, each EAPA investigation is separate, and each administrative record must stand on its own." Despite this, CBP placed documents from the original affirmative EAPA case onto the record of Global Aluminum's second investigation due to "significant overlap." Global Aluminum challenges the refusal to consolidate as "an abuse of discretion" and a violation of due process.