CIT Says Several Components, Finishing Work for Sinks Shouldn't Have Been Included in Dutiable Value
The value of sink components and finishing work that either (1) wasn’t covered under the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders, or, (2) didn’t originate in China, shouldn’t have been included in the sinks’ dutiable value because the orders' language didn't specifically include them, Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled April 21. However, packaging costs should have been, she said.
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.
Choe-Groves called the case an “unusual situation” because the U.S. was arguing in opposition to CBP’s decision to exclude four components from its value calculation for sinks that had been purchased in China and finished in Taiwan: shipping cartons, instruction manuals, drainers and drainer pipe. Importer RH Peterson, on the other hand, was defending CBP’s determinations in that regard.
“Normally the U.S. Department of Justice defends the actions of its client agencies,” she said. “Because the Court reviews the denied protests of customs duties de novo, the Government cannot request a voluntary remand in this case to allow Customs to reconsider Protest No. 270418100444 and potentially reliquidate Entry No. D14-1430362-2.”
She first found that DOJ was allowed, in this circumstance, to adopt “a litigation position inconsistent with that taken by Customs in the administrative proceeding.” She then considered each of the four components individually.
She said instruction manuals were properly excluded originally, as the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders didn’t mention them nor imply they should be covered.
The shipping cartons, on the other hand, should have been included in the products’ transaction value, she said. She explained that 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(1) expressly includes packing costs as part of an entry’s value.
And because the Commerce Department found in a scope ruling that the drainers and drainer pipe were not covered by the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders, she agreed with both parties that CBP was right to exclude both originally.
RH Peterson also argued that CBP shouldn’t have included the value of work conducted on the unfinished sinks in Taiwan in the sinks’ value when assessing duties. This work included stamping a brand logo onto each sink’s side; cutting out drains and holes for faucets; adding dampening pads; cleaning the sinks; and adding Taiwanese-produced brackets so that the sinks could be mounted on countertops. RH Peterson claimed that the latter also fell into the category of “value added” in Taiwan to the sinks, not of “non-covered components.”
Ruling in favor of RH Peterson, Choe-Groves said none of that should have been included in the products’ dutiable value.
She said that nothing in the language of the orders indicated “that the value of the work performed in Taiwan should be included in the dutiable value of the subject goods,” excluding all but the value of the brackets. She called the brackets components, but held that the orders also didn’t mention, and didn’t cover, “components manufactured and added in a third-country such as Taiwan.”
The judge also found that the sinks’ cost of international freight to the U.S., which was included in the prices RH Peterson paid for them, shouldn’t have been part of the sinks’ dutiable value.
Choe-Groves refused to find that the government’s position had been unjustified and award attorneys’ fees, saying that “Plaintiff fails to articulate why it seeks a declaration that Defendant’s litigation position is unjustified and the Court will not speculate as to Plaintiff’s litigation strategy or motive.”
(RH Peterson v. U.S., Slip Op. 25-48, CIT # 20-00099, dated 04/21/2025; Judge: Jennifer Choe-Groves; Attorneys: Elon Pollack of Stein Shostak for plaintiff RH Peterson; Justin Miller for defendant U.S. government)