Importer Continues Attack on CBP Affirmative Evasion Finding in Cambodian Plywood Case

A plaintiff opposed Sept. 13 a CBP redetermination upon remand that again found three importers evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese plywood by transshipping the product through Cambodia (see 2405300058), again arguing the agency’s decision lacked substantial evidence (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03914).

Though the trade court held for the government on all counts in a 2023 ruling (see 2306300033), the U.S. requested a voluntary remand in the wake of Royal Brush (see [Ref:2307270038). CBP allowed the three importers to submit rebuttal information during the remand, though only plaintiff and importer InterGlobal Forest did so, providing declarations from its chief operating officer and the general manager of Cambodian exporter LB Wood.

“Those declarations are under penalty of perjury, something that CBP cavalierly dismisses and disregards as biased and untrustworthy,” InterGlobal said in the Sept. 13 brief.

InterGlobal said it provided “compelling new testimonial and photographic rebuttal evidence” that went disregarded by the redetermination. It also made a number of other arguments against the agency.

This new evidence included “unrefuted testimony” that InterGlobal’s managing officer conducted site inspections of LB Wood’s facilities and witnessed plywood being manufactured, the importer said. It also pointed out that it provided photographs documenting the visits. Those photographs showed, for example, an LB Wood employee “standing at the final table on the operating UV line with stacks of finished … plywood” and canisters of "protective fluid which are cured by the UV light in the UV line,” it said.

This proved that LB Wood was fully operational when CBP visited it and had been able to produce the quantity of plywood it exported to InterGlobal, it said.

The importer also said that CBP’s redetermination went against Far East American, Inc. v. U.S., in which the Court of International Trade ruled that CBP wrongly found that two-ply plywood panels imported into Vietnam were covered by the orders on Chinese plywood because the orders only covered plywood that was “at least three plies.” But in this case, “in an intentional disregard of binding precedent,” CBP is holding that Chinese plywood made from one-ply sheets are covered by those orders, it said.

And the importer claimed CBP wrongly asserted in the investigation that “its Agent’s position has unfettered authority to determine whether the plywood products are within the scope of the Orders,” although that power is actually held by the Commerce Department. It also said that assertion went against Loper Bright, which held that “interpretations of law are reserved to the Courts, not administrative agencies.”

It also argued that CBP wrongly considered the Enforce and Protect Act a strict liability statute, and again said culpability is required for an evasion finding.