Substantial Evidence Still Supports Evasion Finding for Three Glycine Importers, Petitioner Says
Further information placed on the record during a remand shows importers evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese glycine by transshipping their product through Indonesia, a petitioner claimed June 26 before the Court of International Trade (Newtrend USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).
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.
Responding to opposition from the importers, petitioner Deer Park Glycine asked the Court of International Trade to uphold CBP’s affirmative evasion finding, which had gone unchanged by the remand (see 2401190046). The remand -- which the government requested after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Royal Brush (see 2310230022) -- had been opposed by the importers, Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave, who unsuccessfully attempted to shrink its scope (see 2309200049).
In its brief, the petitioner said that when the record had been reopened for the remand, it added evidence “showing that it was impossible to obtain a visa to enter Indonesia between March 2020 and October 2020,” which it argued contradicted PT Newtrend Nutrition Ingredient’s claim that the exporter’s Chinese employees disembarked in Indonesia during that time period.
Deer Park also reviewed the evidence CBP raised in its remand determination, arguing the importers’ seller, PT Newtrend Nutrition Ingredient, didn’t have the capacity it claimed it did to produce glycine in its Indonesian manufacturing facilities.
And like the agency, it also pointed to trade data that it said documented glycine shipments to PTNNI from the exporter’s Chinese affiliate.
The importers were wrong that CBP was attempting to saddle them with the burden of proof, Deer Park argued. Rather, CBP reached its evasion finding based on the information it had available. Even if “there was any inaccuracy concerning PTNNI’s methanol recovery rate, it is a result of the failure of PTNNI and the Plaintiffs to create an accurate record during the investigation and the remand proceeding,” it said.
CBP collected “reams of evidence from all parties” during its evasion investigation, Deer Park said.
“The evidence collected throughout all phases of the investigation contains significant inconsistencies and discrepancies concerning PTNNI’s capability to produce its claimed glycine volumes during the relevant period,” it said.