Foreign Exporters Always Interested Parties in EAPA Investigations, Trailer Wheel Maker Says
A trailer wheel exporter April 15 defended its motion to intervene as plaintiff-intervenor against a domestic producer’s opposition, saying that it's expressly considered an “interested party” under the Enforce and Protect Act (Dexter Distribution Group LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00019).
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.
Trailer wheel manufacturer Asia Wheel pointed out that EAPA, unlike stricter Section 232 tariffs, expressly considers foreign exporters to be interested parties in investigations conducted under the statute. As importer Dexter Distribution Group’s exporter, Asia Wheel argued it is undoubtedly an interested party in an EAPA case that resulted in an affirmative evasion finding for the importer.
It said domestic petitioner Dexstar Wheel Division of Americana Development cited only one case “involving a foreign producer’s request to intervene in an action” against a CBP determination under the EAPA -- and that case actually supports Asia Wheel’s intervention because, in it, the court allowed the intervention. Dexstar’s attempt to distinguish that decision based on a “technicality” fails, it said.
It said that its interest in the case is more than solely economic because it “was directly involved in the transactions (i.e., the importers’ entries) that are the subject of this action” and received “significant” damage to its reputation as a result of CBP’s finding.
And its interest is direct and immediately related to the case because “[w]ithout Asia Wheel, there would not have been an EAPA investigation on trailer wheels from Thailand in the first place,” it said.
However, the exporter said it doesn't seek to add to the administrative record. Instead, as “the actual manufacturer of the merchandise at issue, it is better positioned than the Plaintiff Importers to address issues concerning its manufacturing operations before the Court,” it said.