Another Aluminum Extrusion EAPA Challenge Brought to CIT
Aluminum extrusion importer Hialeah Aluminum Supply on April 29 filed a Court of International Trade complaint challenging an Enforce and Protect Act final affirmative determination. Hialeah argues that CBP's process in the investigation violated its Fifth Amendment due process rights and violated the agency's own regulations (Hialeah Aluminum Supply, Inc. v. United States, #21-00207).
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.
Hialeah, along with that of other U.S. importers, including Global Aluminum, was the subject of EAPA allegations filed by Ta Chen International Inc. that the importers were 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 the importers claim. CBP subsequently issued an affirmative determination of evasion and denied a request for administrative review from Kingtom.
Hialeah's EAPA challenge differs slightly from Global Aluminum's, for while they both challenge the constitutionality of the investigatory process against the importers, Global Aluminum's goes further in challenging the EAPA fees as illegal under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for excessive fines (see 2104280049).
Hialeah joined Global Aluminum in arguing CBP did not provide the affected parties with the right to fully participate in the proceedings, didn't allow the foreign producer Kingtom to participate in the investigation, and failed to release evidence on which to mount a defense, and criticized it for making a determination that runs contrary to the record evidence. Hialeah also claimed that the agency made the determination in violation of its own regulations, gave undue weight to evidence submitted by Ta Chen and made a determination unsupported by substantial evidence.