Recent EU General Court Decision Elucidates Approach to AD Circ. Cases, Trade Manager Says
A recent legal case in the EU helped clear up how the European Commission considers the factors it points to when identifying if a company has evaded antidumping duties, said Simran Sethi, senior manager at OCR Global Trade Management Software Solutions, during an Aug. 30 webinar. Speaking to the importance of import compliance in light of recent judicial developments in the U.S. and abroad, Sethi laid out the four criteria the commission considers when making its evasion findings.
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.
These criteria are (1) a change in the pattern of trade between a third country and the EU, (2) a change in the trade pattern stemming from a practice or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the AD duty, (3) evidence of harm to the domestic industry and (4) dumping evidence in relation to the normal values for the like product.
In Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group v. European Commission, the EU General Court said that the commission satisfied all four of these conditions when finding circumvention of the antidumping duties on aluminum foil from China by importing the foil from Thailand. Sethi noted that when discussing circumvention, the commission shall duly consider all four conditions, adding that the AD duties cannot be avoided by merely changing the supply chain to another country.
Sethi then shifted to discussing recent evasion and circumvention rulings in the U.S. and their impact on import compliance. The OCR manager highlighted the American Pacific Plywood v. U.S. case, in which the Court of International Trade sustained CBP's evasion finding against hardwood plywood importers (see 2306300033).
The court said CBP did not misapply the substantial evidence standard when it said the importers were transshipping Chinese plywood through Cambodia. Sethi noted that the case shows how the Enforce and Protect Act sets the procedures for evasion cases, which includes the deadlines for CBP to begin the case after an allegation has been brought and to make a decision.