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

U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)

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

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

The Largest Customs Fraud Settlement from the DOJ Trade Fraud Task Force: $549.5 Million and What This Means for Importers 

On May 12, 2026, the Department of Justice announced one of the largest customs fraud settlements in U.S. history. Perfectus Aluminum Inc., Perfectus Aluminum Acquisitions LLC, and four affiliated warehousing companies (“the Defendants”) agreed to pay $549.5 million to resolve False Claims Act (“FCA”) allegations that they knowingly evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions imported from China. 

The Scheme: Pallets That Weren’t Pallets 

The underlying conduct was relatively simple. According to the Settlement Agreement, between July 2011 and June 2014, the Defendants knowingly made false statements on CBP Form 7501 Entry Summaries, misrepresenting more than 2.2 million aluminum extrusions as finished merchandise not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties. The mechanism? The extrusions were spot-welded together to make them appear to be functional pallets — and there were no actual customers for these “pallets.” So, no merchandise was ever actually sold. 

Criminal Conviction Came First 

This civil settlement did not arise in a vacuum. In August 2021, a jury in the Central District of California convicted the Defendants of conspiracy to defraud the United States, wire fraud, and passing false or fraudulent documents through a customs house. Following sentencing, the defendants were ordered to pay restitution of approximately $1.83 billion to CBP. The May 2026 FCA settlement resolves the parallel civil litigation arising from the same conduct. Importantly, this civil resolution does not absolve the defendants from any criminal liability outlined in […]

By |2026-05-22T15:16:34-04:00May 22, 2026|AD/CVD, Enforcement, Import, International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Uncategorized|0 Comments
Read More

Commerce Releases Applications for Onshoring Agreements to Reduce Section 232 Tariffs

On May 11, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce published the procedures for companies to apply for agreements with the U.S. government to reduce Section 232 tariffs on imported patented pharmaceutical products by onshoring manufacturing.

Section 232 Background 

On April 2, 2026, President Trump issued a proclamation imposing Section 232 tariffs on certain pharmaceutical products imported into the United States. Section 232 authorizes the president to adjust imports to address national security threats. In the proclamation, the President stated that the U.S.’s reliance on imports of pharmaceuticals has created fragile supply chains, threatening national security.

President Trump imposed a 100% tariff on certain patented pharmaceuticals and their associated ingredients. The tariffs will take effect for certain large companies on July 31, 2026, and for small companies on September 29, 2026.

The proclamation also included several carveouts. For example, Companies that have entered into qualifying agreements with the US government and developed plans to onshore production of patented pharmaceuticals and associated ingredients will be subject to only a 20% tariff from September 29, 2026, through April 2, 2030. 

Onshoring Agreement Application Process

On May 11, 2026, Commerce published procedures for companies to apply for Onshoring Agreements that would qualify them for the reduced 20% tariff. 

Applications must include: 

  • Organization Information: Full legal name, address, ownership structure, and beneficial ownership, including the country where the company’s headquarters is located.
By |2026-05-14T13:30:30-04:00May 14, 2026|Import, International Trade, tariffs, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|0 Comments
Read More

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Stationary and Portable Air Compressors from China, Malaysia, and Vietnam 

A new antidumping and countervailing duty action has been filed against stationary and portable air compressors from China, Malaysia, and Vietnam. The allegation is that imports from China, Malaysia, and Vietnam are unfairly subsidized and are being dumped.  

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 stationary and portable air compressors, electric, gas, and battery-powered.  

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 8414.80.1615, 8414.80.1625, 8414.80.1635, and 8414.80.1685.  

Full scope here.

Next Steps 

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

By |2026-05-06T09:41:00-04:00May 6, 2026|AD/CVD, China, Import, International Trade, Investigation, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), Vietnam|0 Comments
Read More

New AD Case Filed Against Polytetramethylene Ether Glycol From China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam   

A new antidumping action has been filed against Polytetramethylene Ether Glycol from China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam. The allegation is that imports from China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are being dumped.  

Full list of exporters here. 

Import volume here.  

Background on AD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) is 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. 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 all forms of polytetramethylene ether glycol (“PTMEG”).  

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 3907.29.00 and 2932.11.00.   

Full scope here.

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 threat of material injury within 45 days. 

As with any proceeding, participation is very important to protect your rights. We urge anyone who imports Polytetramethylene Ether Glycol from China, South Korea, Taiwan, or Vietnam to […]

By |2026-04-09T16:24:14-04:00April 9, 2026|AD/CVD, Import, International Trade, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)|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