CBP Ignored Clear Evidence to Reach Evasion Ruling, Cabinet Importer Claims
CBP ignored the metadata of certain photographs and videos in an evasion investigation in order to claim they were unreliable, a wooden cabinet importer argued July 8 at the Court of International Trade (Skyview Cabinet USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00080).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
In comments, importer Skyview Cabinet USA pushed back against CBP’s continued finding on remand that Skyview evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China (see 2405210052), saying that the agency “committed fatal legal and factual errors with respect to elements required to make an affirmative determination.”
CBP said again on remand that Skyview’s photos and videos, which the importer argued demonstrate its reliance on Malaysian rather than Chinese manufacturing facilities, “remain unauthenticated, which makes them unreliable, especially given the contrary information provided by the investigator,” Skyview said. The images depicted the operations of Malaysian manufacturer Rowenda Kitchen, which refused to participate in the investigation, Skyview said.
“At the outset, the ‘authenticated’ requirement is a headscratcher with no statutory, regulatory, or case law support,” it said.
Metadata indicates that the photos were taken just before the export date and, according to GPS data, in the Malaysian facility, the importer said. It also said Rowenda was copied in the email in which Skyview’s customs broker sent CBP the images.
But even though there were inconsistencies between Skyview’s photographs of Rowenda’s facilities and those photos of the facility CBP received from petitioner Masterbrand’s investigator, CBP “continues to unlawfully, summarily dismiss relevant data” from Skyview while relying on the petitioner’s, the importer said.
This was “clearly” an adverse inference against Rowenda, as CBP selected “among facts otherwise available” to make a ruling instead of relying on Skyview’s and Rowenda’s data, it said. It argued that this meant that CBP didn’t follow all Enforce and Protect Act procedures.
“Indeed, as provided by Rowenda, Skyview presented a volume of Royal Brush ‘substantial evidence’ factor documentation that was not verified by CBP, including the metadata above, resulting in direct violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1517(c),” it said.
The importer previously argued that Masterbrand’s investigator’s evidence amounted to “hearsay,” but Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden held against it on that claim in June 2023 (see 2306200059).