antidumping duties 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

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: High Purity Dissolving Pulp from Brazil and Norway

A new antidumping and countervailing duty action has been filed on high purity dissolving pulp from Brazil and Norway. The allegation is that imports from Brazil and Norway 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 high purity dissolving pulp.

The products subject to the investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 4702.00.0020 and 4702.00.0040.

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 […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2025-08-13T13:14:58-04:00August 13, 2025|AD/CVD, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|Comments Off

ICYMI: Patio Furniture Company Agrees to Pay $4.9 Million to Resolve Duty Evasion Allegations

On July 24, 2025, the Department of Justice (DoJ) announced that Grosfillex, Inc., a Pennsylvania furniture company, agreed to pay $4.9 million to resolve allegations it evaded antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD).

Grosfillex submitted false forms to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) claiming that furniture parts made of extruded aluminum from China were not subject to AD/CVD. The company attempted to hide the aluminum extrusions by falsely packing them as sham “furniture kits.” Additionally, for a different subset of extrusions, the company failed to correct customs forms it had submitted previously, even after learning that the forms contained false information.

The investigation arose from a whistleblower lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act by a former employee of Grosfillex. Under the False Claims Act, private citizens can sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. In this case, the whistleblower will receive $962,662.74.

Duty Evasion is on the Rise

This case is just one example of the growing incentive to cheat that comes with higher tariffs. Whether it’s through misclassifying goods, undervaluing imports, or using deceptive transshipment routes, some companies think they are being creative, but, instead, are participating in outright illegal strategies to reduce their tariff liability.

Higher tariffs have even contributed to the emergence of a cottage industry of “tariff reduction” companies that suggest ways to cut import costs. However, many of these so-called strategies amount to evasion, […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2025-08-01T10:52:13-04:00August 1, 2025|AD/CVD, Enforcement, Import, International Trade, Penalty, Reasonable Care, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)|Comments Off