CBP Failed to Give Importer Adequate Explanation of Protest Denial, Company Claims
Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 claiming CBP failed to provide the company with a "statement of reasons" for the denial of its protest concerning its passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. The company said protest denial was improper because it centered on a message from the Commerce Department, which the importer wasn't given access to (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., CIT # 24-00149).
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.
In addition, Strategic Import Supply said CBP improperly assessed a 92.48% antidumping duty rate on the tire entries, but they should have received a 13.93% AD rate as set in the sixth administrative review of the AD order on the tires.
The importer entered tires made by Chinese manufacturer Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co. At the time of entry, Qingdao's assigned AD rate was 12.83%. After the tires were entered, Commerce completed the sixth review period, assigning the exporter a 13.93% company-specific rate. Instead of applying this rate, CBP hit the tires with a 92.48% rate, which represents the 105.31% China-wide rate minus Qingdao's previous 12.83% rate.
Strategic Import Supply filed protests, which CBP denied, referencing the confidential decision from Commerce. The company said it was told to contact Commerce's AD/CVD call center, which refused to grant the company access to the Commerce decision. Strategic Import Supply was then told to contact CBP's Customs Center of Excellence and Expertise, which also didn't provide the company with the message.
The company sued and said CBP gave it "no indication as to why" its protest was denied, failing to provide it with an adequate statement of reasons for the denial as required by the agency's regulations. Strategic Import Supply also claimed that the imposition of the higher AD rate was improper because Commerce set the company-specific rate of 13.93% for the company.