AD/CVD Archives | Customs & International Trade Law Blog

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 Jennifer Diaz|2026-09-18T13:16:34-04:00September 18, 2026|AD/CVD, Tariffs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|Comments Off

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 Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-02T07:40:24-04:00July 2, 2026|AD/CVD, Import, People's Republic of China|Comments Off

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 Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-02T07:24:27-04:00July 2, 2026|AD/CVD, Enforcement, Import, Investigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Choline Salts from China

A new antidumping and countervailing duty action has been filed against Choline Salts 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 initiated when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports 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 choline salts, in all forms and purities.

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 2923.10.0000, 2106.90.9998, 2309.90.1005, 2309.90.1015, 2309.90.1020, 2309.90.1030, 2309.90.1032, 2309.90.1035, 2309.90.1045, 2309.90.1050, 2309.90.9500, and 3824.99.9397.

Full scope here.

Next Steps

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

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-06-26T12:37:23-04:00June 26, 2026|AD/CVD, China, Import, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)|Comments Off

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 Jennifer Diaz|2026-05-22T15:16:31-04:00May 22, 2026|AD/CVD, Enforcement, Import, International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)|Comments Off

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 Jennifer Diaz|2026-05-06T09:40:58-04:00May 6, 2026|AD/CVD, China, Import, International Trade, Investigation, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), Vietnam|Comments Off

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

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Large Diameter Graphite Electrodes From China and India

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

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 all large diameter graphite electrodes of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, with a nominal or actual diameter exceeding 425 millimeters (16.7 inches), and whether or not attached to a graphite pin joining system or any other type of joining system or hardware.

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 8545.11.0020, 3801.10.5090, and 3801.90.0050.

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-03-04T11:33:06-05:00March 4, 2026|AD/CVD, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|Comments Off

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Truck Bed Covers From China

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

Full list of importers and 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 truck bed covers, which are protective shields made of aluminum, fiberglass, carbon fiber, plastic, and/or water-resistant fabric that are seized to span the open-top area of a pickup truck.

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheading: 8708.29.5160.

Full scope here.

Next Steps

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

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-02-26T08:49:45-05:00February 26, 2026|AD/CVD, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|Comments Off

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Certain Fatty Acids From Indonesia and Malaysia

A new antidumping and countervailing duty action has been filed against certain fatty acids from Indonesia and Malaysia. The allegation is that imports from Indonesia and Malaysia 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 fatty acids, which are organic acids made of a hydrocarbon chain with a carboxylic acid group attached to an R-group, with an iodine value below 105g/100g and with a ratio of free fatty acids to triglycerides of at least 97%.

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 2915.70.01.20, 2915.70.01.50, 2915.90.10.50, 2916.15.10.00, 2916.15.51.00, 3823.11.00.00, 3823.12.00.00, 3823.19.20.00, 3823.19.40.00, 2915.70.01.10, and 2915.90.10.10.

Full scope here.

Next Steps

The Commerce Department will determine […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-02-04T06:53:15-05:00February 4, 2026|AD/CVD, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|Comments Off