Importer Asks for More Words to File Reply in $100 Million Customs Penalty Case
Importer Wanxiang America asked the Court of International Trade for an extra 3,000 words for its reply to the U.S.'s opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss a $100 million customs penalty case. In a Jan. 27 motion seeking a total of 10,000 words for its reply brief, Wanxiang America said that the extra words will give the court "a more complete understanding of Defendant's argument as to (a) why the Government cannot, as a matter of law, establish any Section 1592 violation and (b) the Government’s case against the Defendant amounts to significant Government overreach by Customs." The U.S. opposes the motion (U.S. v. Wanxiang America Corporation, CIT # 22-00205).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Wanxiang America imported the merchandise in question between 2007 and 2012. During this period, the importer brought in universal joints and parts, wheel hub assemblies, radial ball bearings, tapered roller bearings, and other automobile parts and accessories. The U.S. alleged these goods were subject to the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China and said Wanxiang America should have paid the cash deposit rate of 92.84% for the goods, since the relevant exporter, Wanxiang Qianchao, was subject to the all-others rate.
In its October 2022 motion to dismiss, Wanxiang America said that the U.S. cannot retroactively apply a scope ruling to argue that an importer negligently avoided antidumping duties on imports that were not subject to the AD order at the time of entry. Wanxiang America argued that it was entitled to its parent Wanxiang Group’s zero antidumping rate because it was a subsidiary and shared exporting personnel with its controlling company (see 2210140075). In opposition, DOJ said that Wanxiang America’s arguments largely go to the merits of the government’s claims but "do not detract from the sufficiency and plausibility of those claims (see 2212220047).