Investigation

Breaking Trade News: New AD and CVD Petition Filed on 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid from China and India

On March 14, 2024, Corteva Agriscience LLC filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of 2, 4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic (2, 4-D) acid from China and India.

2, 4-D is the active ingredient in many products used in the United States and throughout the world as an herbicide to kill weeds on land and in water.

Identified importers include:

  • Helena Industries LLC (China)
  • Nufarm Americas Inc. (China)
  • PBI-Gordon Corporation (China)
  • Gharda Chemicals (India)
  • Atul USA, Inc. (India)

The full list of identified exporters and producers can be viewed here.

The alleged dumping margins are:

  • China: 143.73%
  • India: 62.66%

The proposed scope language includes the 2, 4-D component of any derivative products of 2, 4-D including amine salt and ester forms.

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within 20 days. The United States International Trade Court (USITC) will reach a preliminary determination of material injury or threat of material injury within 45 days. Final determinations will likely occur late 2024.

As with any proceeding, participation is very important to protect your rights. We urge anyone that imports 2, 4-D to pay close attention to this case to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to mitigate any damage.

Diaz Trade Law will continue to monitor this case and share updates. For more information or questions get in touch with us at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com.

 

 

ICYMI: U.S. & Chinese Companies Fined $2.5 Million for Underpaying Customs Duties, Whistleblowers to Receive $500,000

Earlier this month, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas announced that a Dallas-based importer, two individuals, and two Chinese companies agreed to pay $2.5 million to resolve allegations that they failed to pay customs duties on imports.

Underpaying Through Duplicate Invoices

ADCO, a Dallas-based importer of industrial products, the company owner Raymond E. Davis, customs broker Calvin Chang, and Chinese companies Xiamen Atlantis MFC Co., Ltd. and Xiamen Taft Medical Co., Ltd conspired to underreport the value of goods they were importing.

The scheme involved falsifying invoices with low values for goods ADCO was importing from China. The company used a separate set of invoices that contained the correct value of goods to ensure that ADCO paid its suppliers the actual value of the goods.

In investigating the scheme, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and CBP’s Consumer Products and Mass Merchandising Center of Excellence and Expertise reviewed over 1,000 import entry lines.

Qui Tam Lawsuit

The settlement with the government resolved a “qui tam” lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act (FCA). A qui tam lawsuit is one that is brought by a private citizen or company against a defendant or defendants that owe money to the government.

When a qui tam lawsuit is successful, the party that initiated the case—called a “relator”—is entitled to a substantial monetary reward, ranging between 15% and 30% of the amount recovered for the government.  A qui tam lawsuit also engages the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the case, and typically results in the opening of […]

Breaking Trade News: American Producers of Aluminum Extrusions File Trade Petitions Alleging Unfair Dumping and Subsidies from 15 Countries

The U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition and the United Steelworkers (USW) union filed petitions claiming unfair trading imports of aluminum extrusions from China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.

Full list of exporters here, full list of U.S. importers here.

The filing is in response to increasing volumes of allegedly unfairly priced imports of aluminum extrusions that have been growing since 2019, notwithstanding that Aluminum Extrusions made in the U.S. face significantly higher costs due to restrictions on the importation of primary aluminum.

The petitions aim to demonstrate that aluminum extrusion producers in these countries are selling extrusions in the U.S. at less than fair value and that such sales are harming the U.S. Aluminum Extrusion industry. The petitions note dumped rates up to 256%.

The petitions also claims that producers in China, Indonesia, Mexico, and Turkey unfairly benefit from countervailable subsidies, such as tax breaks and discounted land.

The President of the Aluminum Extruders Council, Jeff Henderson, stated:  “For years, American extruders and workers have lost huge amounts of sales to unfairly traded, dumped and subsidized imports of aluminum extrusions. It’s time to take a stand for American manufacturing and take on these illegally traded products.”

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. The deposit of duties will likely be required by the late fall […]

By |2023-10-06T13:59:01-04:00October 6, 2023|Import, Investigation|0 Comments

301 Exclusion Extensions for COVID-19 Related Products

On March 10, 2021, via Federal Register Notice ( 86 FR 13785), the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced that 99 medical product exclusions will be extended from March 31, 2021, to September 30, 2021. This action extends a previous USTR action which extended these exclusions from December 31, 2020, to March 31, 2020 (85 FR 85831). […]

Proposed 25% Tariffs on Section 301 Digital Service Taxes – Comment Now

Background on Section 301 Digital Service Taxes

In 2020, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) initiated Section 301 investigations with respect to certain Digital Service Taxes (“DSTs”) being adopted or under consideration by a number of countries. DSTs are taxes on revenues that certain companies generate from providing certain digital services to users in those jurisdictions. According to USTR, available evidence suggests that DSTs are expected to target large, U.S.-based technology companies.

Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President to take all appropriate action including tariff-based and non-tariff-based retaliation to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.

[…]

Title

Go to Top