CBP Ignored Prior Disclosure Payments When Calculating Duty Refund, Importer Tells CIT

CBP miscalculated antidumping duty payments on imported crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwain, ignored prior disclosure payments by importer URE NSP, and then partially denied a protest seeking those refunds, said URE NSP in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (URE NSP Corporation v. U.S. CBP, CIT # 23-00154). The company asked the court to order a refund of about $311,00 plus interest for overpayment of duties.

URE NSP imported crystalline silicon photovoltaic products in the two shipments at issue from Taiwanese manufacturer United Renewable Energy (URECO). URECO had previously been created in a merger of Neo Solar Power, Gintech Energy Corp., and Solartech Energy and had requested that Commerce conduct a changed circumstances review to determine whether the company was a successor-in-interest, which would entitle it to use the 1.33% specific AD cash deposit rates of Neo, Gintech and Solartech.

At the time of import, URE NSP used the 1.33% rate but was then advised to use the 19.5% all-others rate based on the guidance of CBP's Electronics Center's director. After considering CBP's guidance, the company submitted a prior disclosure of additional duties and fees that would have been due if it had paid duties at the 19.5% all-others rate.

When Commerce finished its administrative review, shipments of solar products exported by URECO and imported by URE NSP were liquidated at an undisclosed rate under a judicial protective order. After the solar components had liquidated, Commerce determined that URECO was a successor in interest to Gintech, NSP, and Solartech and therefore permitted to use their 1.33% cash deposit rate.

At the conclusion of Commerce’s administrative review, URE NSP had already paid over $430,000 in duties, tariffs and fees for one of its entries. Those payments reflected the higher, incorrect cash deposit rate and included an incorrect entry value due to a mistake by URE NSP's broker, the complaint said. Based on the correct entry value and the final AD rate, the duties should have been $250,162.59., the company said. URE NSP argued that it overpaid $183,000 in duties. In April 2023, CBP denied the protest in part and issued a refund of just over $10,000. URE NSP said CBP "failed to consider the sums contributed in URE NSP’s Prior Disclosure."

For the second shipment, URE NSP said it overpaid around $140,000, again because CBP allegedly failed to consider "all information provided in the protest" including the company's payments that accompanied its prior disclosures. "Proper accounting of the evidence provided to CBP would have demonstrated that URE NSP paid a total of $333,375.50 not the mere $197,841.84 that served as the basis for CBP’s partial denial," the company said.

In total, URE NSP said it paid over $760,000 instead of the $450,000 that CBP used to calculate its refund in the two protests, resulting in an underpayment of $311,727.43.