U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued a final rule that updates regulations first issued in 2016 to implement the procedures used to investigate claims of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders under the Enforce and Protect Act.
Among the changes being made in this rule, which will be effective as of April 17, are the following.
- adds examples of evasion to the definition of that term, such as the transshipment, misclassification and/or undervaluation of covered goods
- states that CBP will reject any submission, and not consider or place such submission on the administrative record, if a party (1) has not provided proof of execution of a power of attorney within five business days of a first submission during an investigation or administrative review, (2) has not provided proof of authority to execute a power of attorney, or (3) has not fulfilled the specified form requirements
- clarifies that CBP may only consider “any other available information” placed on the administrative record for purposes of applying adverse inferences
- allows for additional methods for the submission of withdrawal requests
- clarifies that any documents submitted prior to the notice of initiation of an investigation will be served on the parties soon after the issuance of the notice, regardless of who submitted those documents
- clarifies that CBP may conduct verifications before and after the deadline for voluntary submission of factual information and that the purpose of the verification is to verify the accuracy of the information already placed on the administrative record
- provides that CBP will establish an administrative protective order process to allow for the release of business confidential information to parties to an investigation
In addition, CBP has made the following clarifications in its answers to questions and comments submitted on the interim final rule.
- An importer may be precluded from filing a prior disclosure for violations discovered during an EAPA investigation but may not be precluded from filing a prior disclosure for violations discovered outside of the EAPA investigation.
- CBP retains the discretion to accept or reject a prior disclosure for any facts not discovered during an EAPA investigation.
- CBP is not required to initiate any other actions, including section 592 proceedings, in connection with an EAPA investigation.
- CBP has started publishing public versions of final administrative review determinations.
- An evasion determination in an EAPA investigation is not a protestable decision.
Copyright © 2024 Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.; WorldTrade Interactive, Inc. All rights reserved.