ACE: Auditing Your Import History

In FY 2020 alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) import audits resulted in over $44.6 million being collected by CBP. Similarly, CBP collected over $20.1 million in FY 2020 from trade-related penalties and liquidated damages. Prior to CBP auditing you, there is a lot you can do to be proactive about import compliance. The first step is getting a clear picture of your imports by accessing and analyzing your import data on the Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”). An ACE  audit can identify duty-saving opportunities and open risks.

To date, CBP has collected $87.8 billion in China 301 tariffs. If you have paid Section 301 China tariffs on Lists 3 and 4 and you have joined the landmark lawsuit demanding full refunds on these tariffs paid, it is critical that you understand the extent of China tariffs that you have paid, and proactively look out for liquidations. Proactively and comprehensively auditing your ACE import data is the first step.

Whether you are new to importing or a seasoned professional, this one-hour webinar is a must attend. Register today to hear directly from our Diaz Trade Law President Jennifer (Jen) Diaz about audit risks and duty-saving opportunities. Jen is a Chambers ranked, Board Certified International Attorney specializing in customs and international trade.

[…]

New Antidumping Petition Against Imports of Certain Honey Products

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.

[…]

Anti-Circumvention, EAPA, Dumping Duties & the Spreadability of Cases

This one-hour webinar will provide an overview of AD/CVD, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s enforcement actions and investigative process, as well as a review of EAPA regulations and provide insights on best practices to protect your company in this contentious area of U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforcement.

Background on EAPA

The Enforce and Protect Act of 2015 (EAPA) allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to investigate whether a company has evaded anti-dumping and countervailing (AD/CVD) duties in an on-the-record investigation. EAPA enforcement has increased considerably in recent years. In fact, in Fiscal Year 2020, CBP collected $287 million in duties via EAPA enforcement – this is a 500 percent increase since the beginning of the EAPA program in FY 2017.

On April 21, 2021 at 12:00 PM, Jennifer Diaz and David Craven will present a webinar on Anti-Circumvention/EAPA/Dumping Duties & the Spreadability of Cases.

[…]

New AD/CVD Petition Against Imports of Certain Chinese Mobile Access Equipment

Co-Authored by Sharath Patil

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.

[…]

U.S. Ends Differential Treatment for Hong Kong

On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced via Federal Register Notice that all items made in Hong Kong and destined for the U.S. must now indicate “China” as the country of origin.

Hong Kong’s unique political situation as an autonomous city-state initially called for specially tailored laws and regulations governing items imported into the United States. For more than 20 years the US recognized the separation between China and Hong Kong, evidenced by the requirements to distinguish between the two. Additionally, in light of the Section 301 investigation of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation; as well as the regime’s human rights and forced labor abuses, the United States is especially keen on identifying items produced in China.

[…]

Go to Top