CBP Lacked Evidence to Begin EAPA Case, Importer Says

CBP should remand and terminate an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found CEK Group evaded an antidumping duty order because the underlying allegation was insufficient, not containing information required to find a reasonable suspicion of evasion of an antidumping duty order, CEK argued in a Feb. 15 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (CEK Group LLC v. United States, CIT # 22-00082).

The case concerns CBP's EAPA finding that CEK Group evaded the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from China by way of transshipment through Thailand. In its complaint, CEK alleged that CBP failed to address all arguments made and did not base its evasion finding on any substantial evidence of transshipment (see 2203110068).

CEK argued that the EAPA regulations require an allegation to contain enough specific information to "reasonably suggest" covered merchandise had been brought into the U.S. for consumption through evasion (see 2209120052). In its Jan. 13 response, DOJ and defendant-intervenor M&B argued that CEK’s initiation challenge was contrary to the statutory design of EAPA investigations. Because the statute does not provide an opportunity for the target of an investigation to comment on the initiation at the time, the target cannot readily challenge the initiation, DOJ said.

According to CEK, the government argues that it must initiate an investigation even if the issue is close, because the alleger could bring a court action to compel it to action means that an alleger can challenge an initiation determination. If an alleger has the power to challenge an initiation, "so too can the target of an EAPA action," CEK said. Finally, the government cannot rely on information made available during the investigation to support its initiation, CEK said. "The allegation must be evaluated at the time that it was filed."