United States of America: Private suit to enforce the collection of AD/CVD orders
Description
The U.S. Department of Justice has intervened in a case that a private whistleblower has brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) against alleged evasion of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. The results of this case could encourage private individuals and the United States in the collection of unpaid antidumping and countervailing duty entries. The FCA (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33) permits claims against those who have falsely claimed Federal funds or made misrepresentations to avoid paying funds owed to the government. On April 24, 2012 the United States intervened in a lawsuit against a Japanese company, Toyo Ink Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and its U.S. subsidiaries alleging that they misrepresented the country of origin of imported products to avoid antidumping duties. While the vast majority of FCA cases are in the health care and defense contracting industries, the law is broad enough to cover customs fraud and the United States’ intervention in this case is consistent with efforts to recover unpaid antidumping duties. The Toyo suit was filed in October, 2009 by whistleblower John Dickson in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The suit alleges that the Toyo companies “knowingly misrepresented the country or origin on documents presented to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to avoid paying antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of the colorant carbazole violet pigment number 23 (CVP-23).” Department of Justice Press Release. Imports of CVP-23 from India and China have been subject to antidumping and countervailing duties since 2004. The suit states that Toyo claimed that Japan and Mexico were the countries of origin for the imported products. Apparently the Chinese and Indian CVP-23 underwent finishing processes in Japan and Mexico, but the complaint alleges that these processes were not sufficient to change the country of origin. Thus, the origin should have been claims as China or India and antidumping and countervailing duties should have been paid.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | |
| Was such evidence identified? | |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: No
Date of inception:
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
See the hyperlinked material and the Washington Trade Report (www.washingtontradereport.com).
Government Response:
- 267 reads
