LinkedInFacebookInstagramXYouTube
305-456-3830|info@diaztradelaw.com

AD/CVD

Call 305-456-3830 or email info@diaztradelaw.com.

Diaz Trade Law Of Counsel David Craven Challenges Treatment of AD/CVD Entries at the Court of International Trade 

As U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continues processing refunds of tariffs unlawfully imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), one category of entries presents a particularly complicated problem: imports that are also subject to antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD). 

For these importers, the timing of an IEEPA refund could affect more than when they get their money back. It could potentially affect the amount of antidumping duties they ultimately owe. 

David Craven, Of Counsel to Diaz Trade Law, represents Aditya Birla Chemicals USA Inc. and Pack Perfect Inc., and is challenging that problem before the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in Aditya Birla Chemicals USA Inc. and Pack Perfect Inc. v. Trump, Court No. 26-00134. 

On July 28, Craven filed a Motion to Lift Stay and for Issuance of Order Clarifying Refunds, asking the CIT to address an emerging conflict between CBP’s IEEPA refund process and the Department of Commerce’s calculation of antidumping duties. 

At the heart of the case is a procedural catch-22: Commerce is treating IEEPA duties as a cost when calculating certain antidumping margins because the duties have not yet been refunded, while CBP’s current refund process may require the affected AD/CVD entries to liquidate before those refunds can be issued. 

Why Type 03 Entries Are Different 

Aditya Birla Chemicals and Pack Perfect […]

By |2026-09-18T13:16:35-04:00September 18, 2026|AD/CVD, tariffs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|0 Comments
Read More

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Corrugated Pizza Boxes From China, Malaysia, and Turkey   

A new antidumping and countervailing duty action has been filed against corrugated pizza boxes From China, Malaysia, and Turkey. The allegation is that imports from China, Malaysia, and Turkey are unfairly subsidized and are being dumped.  

Full list of exporters here. 

Full list of importers here.  

Background on AD/CVD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. The domestic industry initiating the investigation is known as the petitioner while the foreign industry participating in the investigation is known as the respondent.  

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by these investigations is certain corrugated food service boxes, commonly known as pizza boxes, regardless of shape.  

The product subject to the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the subheading: 4819.10.0020.  

Next Steps 

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within 20 days. The USITC will reach a preliminary determination of material injury or […]

By |2026-09-14T17:24:03-04:00September 14, 2026|AD/CVD, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|0 Comments
Read More

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Glyphosate from China 

A new antidumping and countervailing duty action has been filed against Glyphosate from China. The allegation is that imports from China are being dumped and unfairly subsidized.  

Full list of importers here.
Full list of exporters here. 

Background on AD/CVD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. The domestic industry initiating the investigation is known as the petitioner, while the foreign industry participating in the investigation is known as the respondent. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by these investigations is glyphosate (N(phosphonomethyl) glycine) in all forms, concentrations, and formulations.  

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 2931.49.0020, 3808.93.5020, and 2931.49.0080.  

Full scope here.

Next Steps 

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within 20 days. The […]

By |2026-07-02T07:40:26-04:00July 2, 2026|AD/CVD, China, Import|0 Comments
Read More

EAPA Update: CBP Finds Evasion Despite Full Cooperation 

A recent EAPA evasion finding against a solar importer reveals how a single country-of-origin misclassification can trigger steep consequences, even when the importer fully cooperates with CBP.

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • CBP issued a Notice of Determination as to Evasion in an EAPA case, finding that a major solar-module importer evaded antidumping AD/CVD orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. 
  • Report the cell, not the module.  For solar modules assembled in a third country, the AD/CVD-relevant country of origin is where the cell was made, not where the module was assembled. Declaring the assembly country can be a material, false statement under EAPA. 
  • Cooperation does not erase the duty.  The company fully cooperated, but CBP found evasion anyway. 
  • The exposure is severe.  Cash-deposit rates reached up to 271.28% (Vietnam AD) and 238.95% (China-wide AD).
  • If you assemble abroad and import into the U.S., audit your country-of-origin declarations now — before an allegation does it for you. 

The Evasion Case 

On June 23, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a Notice of Determination as to Evasion in EAPA Consolidated Case No. 8163, finding substantial evidence that a major solar-module importer evaded antidumping (AD) and countervailing (CVD) duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. The finding reached the Vietnam Circumvention Determination and the Malaysia and Vietnam AD/CVD Orders. 

The […]

By |2026-07-02T07:24:30-04:00July 2, 2026|AD/CVD, Enforcement, Import, Investigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments
Read More

A Court Just Blocked an EAPA Evasion Action Over a 519% Duty Rate

Quick Summary: On April 24, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade did something importers rarely see – it stepped in mid-investigation and blocked U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from enforcing interim measures in an Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) evasion case. The measures had saddled the importer, ICON EV LLC, with a combined antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) cash-deposit rate of 519.23% and a “live entry” requirement that, on the company’s evidence, would have pushed it into bankruptcy within a month. The decision, ICON EV LLC v. United States, Slip Op. 26-42, is a meaningful crack in what has felt like an impenetrable EAPA enforcement wall, and it offers a roadmap for importers caught in the same trap. 

What is an EAPA evasion investigation? 

The Enforce and Protect Act gives CBP a fast, powerful tool to police the evasion of AD/CVD orders. When a competitor or a domestic industry coalition files a “reasonable allegation” that an importer is dodging duties through transshipment, misclassification, undervaluation, or other schemes, CBP must open an investigation within 15 business days and issue a final determination within 300 days. 

What many importers do not realize is that within 90 days of opening the investigation, CBP must impose “interim measures” if it forms a “reasonable suspicion” of evasion. Those measures can include suspending or extending liquidation of entries, requiring “live entry” (full documentation and duty payment before goods are released), and imposing AD/CVD cash-deposit rates. And critically, the statute does not require CBP to give the importer notice or a chance to respond before those interim measures […]

By |2026-06-08T19:35:02-04:00June 5, 2026|AD/CVD, Enforcement, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|0 Comments
Read More
This website uses cookies and third party services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the Privacy Policy. OK
Skip to content
Go to Top