Three plaintiffs in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. as being "directly relevant" to their own lawsuit. In Royal Brush, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated importer Royal Brush's due process rights by refusing to provide it access to the business confidential information in the EAPA proceeding (see 2307270038). In their case against CBP's finding of evasion of the AD/CVD orders on glycine from China, plaintiffs Newtrend USA Co., Starille and Nutrawave Co. said the Royal Brush decision relates to their first count, which also says CBP violated their due process rights. The companies said they are prepared to submit briefs on the significance of the opinion ahead of the deadline for the U.S. and the petitioner to submit their reply briefs (Newtrend USA Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).
EAPA Litigation
Under the Enforce and Protect Act, CBP investigates whether a company is evading particular antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Litigation on determinations made under the relatively new statute have centered on due process protections for respondents, CBP's evidentiary basis for its decisions and the interplay of decisions made on the scope of the applicable AD/CVD orders from both CBP and the Commerce Department. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a key decision for all EAPA cases in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, when it found CBP to have violated a respondent's due process protections by failing to provide it with access to the business proprietary information used in the proceeding.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., which found that CBP violated importer Royal Brush's due process rights by not giving it access to business confidential information in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding, "may have broader implications," including on forced labor issues, customs lawyer Lawrence Friedman said in a July 28 blog post. If the decision "applies generally, it may require that" CBP make its record fully available, including BCI, which would be an "interesting unintended consequence" of this Enforce and Protect Act case, Friedman said.
CBP violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's due process rights by failing to provide it access to business confidential information (BCI) in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a highly anticipated opinion on July 27.
CBP did not misapply the substantial evidence standard in finding that importers American Pacific Plywood, U.S. Global Forest and InterGlobal Forest evaded the antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood products from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a June 22 opinion made public June 30.
Judge Timothy Dyk at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sharply questioned CBP at oral argument on whether the agency violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's due process rights in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found that the importer evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on pencils from China (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 2 deferred a U.S. motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act case to the merits panel assigned to the case. The government wanted the case tossed because all the entries at issue had been liquidated (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).
The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's affirmative evasion finding in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation against Leco Supply, in a confidential Jan. 24 opinion made public Feb. 1. Judge Mark Barnett held that CBP legally initiated the investigation, backed the evasion decision with substantial evidence, properly rejected Leco's written arguments during remand as untimely and protected the plaintiff's due process rights.
Importer Royal Brush Manufacturing has failed to rebut the U.S.'s showing that an appeal of an Enforce and Protect Act case should be dismissed since the entries have all been liquidated, the government argued in a Jan. 30 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Royal Brush failed to address the U.S. reliance on Federal Circuit precedent showing that "an unprotested liquidation divests the trial court of jurisdiction, even if the liquidation was erroneous," the brief said (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).
The government's motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the entries at issue have been liquidated would deprive importer Royal Brush Manufacturing of any judicial recourse and allow CBP's illegal liquidation of the entries, Royal Brush argued in a Jan. 23 reply brief. Arguing the case is moot because of the liquidations misconstrues the law and presumes incorrectly that Royal Brush’s interests are limited to the erroneous assessment of additional duties," the importer said (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 29 order granted the U.S. motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act appeal to the extent the motion must be filed within 14 days. The U.S. asked for leave to file the motion seeing as all the entries at issue have been liquidated (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1226).