CBP Took Steps to 'Crucify' EAPA Respondent in Hardwood Plywood Evasion Case, Importer Says

CBP took exporter LB Wood Cambodia's statements "completely out of context" in an "unceasing attempt to crucify" the company in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation, plaintiff-intervenor Interglobal said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP ascribed "the worst possible motives" to all the parties to the litigation, including LB Wood, and used "its own misstated presumption as grounds for pole-vaulting" to the conclusion that any evidence that undermines the agency's decisions is "inherently suspect," the brief said (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT #20-03914).

Interglobal's brief bolsters its original challenge of CBP's conduct during the Enforce and Protect Act investigation into evasion of the ADD/CVD orders on hardwood plywood from China (see 2108110034). In the investigation, CBP said that the plaintiffs, led by American Pacific Plywood, were evading duties by transshipping their hardwood plywood through Cambodia. The plaintiffs also included a host of due process violation allegations in their claims against CBP's evasion determination.

During the investigation, LB Wood responded to CBP's request for information over its ownership structure. The company, according to Interglobal, said it had affiliate entities but that those companies were not involved in the production and sales process in Cambodia. "There is no evidence to the contrary," the brief said. However, CBP said that LB Wood lied about this information. CBP's Regulations & Rulings (RR) wing, which conducts de novo reviews of EAPA cases, also found that LB Wood lied to CBP.

"A close and careful reading of the actual documents ... demonstrates that the purported discrepancy is a fallacy which has been completely contrived and patently produced by CBP," the brief said. "All that would have been required to give the lie to CBP’s assertion would have been for the RR to take the time to read the actual Requests for Information and read the actual response. Instead, the RR abdicates its duty to conduct a de novo review. In this instance, the RR simply parroted the CBP’s conclusion and rubberstamped the Final Decision."