CBP recently affirmed an Enforce and Protect Act determination that found Lionshead Specialty Tire & Wheel, TexTrail and Trailstar evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on trailer wheels from China by transshipping Chinese-origin subject merchandise through Thailand, CBP said in a de novo administrative review of an EAPA investigation.
EAPA Litigation
Under the Enforce and Protect Act, CBP investigates whether a company is evading particular antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Litigation on determinations made under the relatively new statute have centered on due process protections for respondents, CBP's evidentiary basis for its decisions and the interplay of decisions made on the scope of the applicable AD/CVD orders from both CBP and the Commerce Department. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a key decision for all EAPA cases in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, when it found CBP to have violated a respondent's due process protections by failing to provide it with access to the business proprietary information used in the proceeding.
to
articlessource documents
Refine Topic Search
Clear Terms
Search Primer
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match together (e.g. "forced labor").
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons to find either word (e.g. AD/CVD CBP).
Acronyms: Use all capital letters (e.g., ACE).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., tariffs +Canada).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., FDA -alert).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "metal" instead of "metals" or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").