G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35  
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
27 March  2024 
(24-2649) Page: 1/39 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  Original:  English  
 
 
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER   
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS  
UNITED STATES 
Supplement  
The following communication, dated and received on 20 March  2024, is being circulated at the 
request of the delegation of the United States . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Pursuant to Article 32.6 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and Article 18.5 
of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the  General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade  1994, the United States hereby notifies : 
Investigation of Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties , 89 Fed. Reg. 19239  
(Mar. 18, 2024 ). 
 
The United States is notifying a modification to its regulations pertaining to U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) regulations to adopt as final, with changes, interim  
amendments to the CBP regulations that were published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2016 
and notified as G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.25  - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24  (dated 26 August 2016).  
The United State s also announces t hat CBP deployed a case management system in April 2021, 
which CBP and the public use for filing, tracking, and adjudicating allegations of evasion of AD/CVD 
orders.  
The regulations are effective April 17, 2024.  
========================== ===================================  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY  
U.S. Customs and Border Protection  
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY  
19 CFR Part 165  
[USCBP -2016-0053; CBP Dec. 24 -04] 
RIN 1515 -AE10 
Investigation of Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and  Countervailing Duties  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 2 - 
 
  AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland  Security; Department of 
the Treasury.  
ACTION: Final rule.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
SUMMARY: This document adopts as final, with changes, interim  amendments to the U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) regulations  that were pu blished in the Federal Register on 
August  22, 2016, as CBP  Dec. 16 -11, which implemented procedures to investigate claims of  evasion 
of antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders in  accordance with section 421 of the Trade 
Facilitation and Trade  Enforcement Act of 2015. This document also announces that CBP deployed  a 
case management system in April 2021, which CBP and the public use  for filing, tracking, and 
adjudicating allegations of evasion of AD/CVD  orders.  
DATES: Effective on April 17,  2024.  
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Cho, Chief, EAPA  Investigations Branch, Office of 
Trade, U.S. Customs and Border  Protection, (202) 945 -7900, or victoria.cho@cbp.dhs.gov , or 
Kristina  Horgan, Supervisory International Trade Analyst, EAPA Investigations  Branch, Office of 
Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (202) 897 -9399, or kristina.horgan@cbp.dhs.gov . 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  
Table of Contents  
I. Background  
    A. Enforce and Protect Act of 2015  
    B. Interim Final Rule  
    C. Operations  
II. Discussion of Comments  
    A. Subpart A --General Provisions  
    B. Subpart B --Initiation of Investigations  
    C. Subpart C --Investigation Procedures  
    D. Subpart D --Administrative Review of Determinations  
    E. Other Comments  
III. Technical Changes and Clarifications to the Interim Regulations  
IV. Conclusion  
V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements  
    A. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866  
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act  
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act  
Signing Authority  
List of Subjects  
Amendments to the Regulations  
I. Backgro und 
A. Enforce and Protect Act of 2015  
    On February 24, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Trade  Facilitation and Trade 
Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA), which contains  Title IV --Prevention of Evasion of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty  Orders (short title "Enforce and Protect Act of 2015 " or "EAPA") 
(Pub.  L. 114-125, 130 Stat. 122, 155 (Feb. 24, 2016) (19 U.S.C. 4301  note)). EAPA established a 
formal process for U.S. Customs and Border  Protection (CBP) to investigate allegations of evasion 
of antidumping  and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders. Section 421 of TFTEA amended  the 
Tariff Act of 1930 by establishing a new framework for CBP to  investigate allegations of evasion of 
AD/CVD orders, under newly  created section 517 ( "Procedures for Investigating Claims of Evasion  
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders "), and required that  regulations be prescribed as 
necessary, and provisions be implemented  within 180 days of TFTEA's enactment. 
See 19 U.S.C.  1517.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 3 - 
 
  B. Interim Final Rule  
    On August 22, 2016, CBP published an interim final rule (the  "IFR") (CBP Dec. 16 -11) in the 
Federal Register (81 FR 56477),  setting forth procedures for the investigation of claims of evasion 
of antidumping and countervailing duty orders in a new part 165 in title 19 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (19 CFR part 165), with a 60 -day public comment period. The IFR became effective on 
August 22, 2016. On  September 8, 2016, CBP published a technical correction in the Federa l Register 
(81 FR 62004) to correct lan guage in the definition of "evade  or evasion " in 19 CFR 165.1, by adding 
a comma that was inadvertently  omitted. On October 21, 2016, CBP published an extension of the 
comment  period in the  
 
[[Page 19240]]  
 
Federal Register (81 FR 72692), providing an additional 60 days for  interested persons to submit 
comments in response to the IFR in order  to have as much public participation as possible in the 
formulation of  the final rule.  
Operations  
    The first EAPA allegation was submitted to CBP i n September 2016,  approximately one month 
after the interim regulations became effective.  Between September 2016 and the end of fiscal year 
2021, CBP's Trade  Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate (TRLED) has processed approximately  
490 EAPA allegations and in itiated 179 investigations; in addition, CBP  has processed 39 requests 
for administrative review and issued 19 final  administrative determinations.  
    In these past few years, CBP has gained considerable expertise  processing EAPA allegations and 
has continued to ensure that EAPA  proceedings are transparent and that all parties are afforded an  
opportunity for full participation and engagement during t he investigation. To enhance convenience 
and provide further transparency,  on April 1, 2021, CBP deployed the EAPA Portal, an electronic case  
management system for the filing, tracking, and adjudicating of EAPA  allegations, and maintaining 
an administrativ e record, in one  centralized location, which may be accessed on CBP's website at 
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/trade -enforcement/tftea/eapa  when clicking on  the field titled "Filing an 
EAPA Allegation. " \1\ 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    \1\ Trade users must submit an EAPA allegation through the EAPA  Portal. The EAPA Portal ca n be 
reached in two ways. First, through  the Trade Violation Reporting (TVR) system, also known as 
e-Allegations, used for reporting various trade violations. Trade  users can access e -Allegations at 
https://eall egations.cbp.gov/s  and submit an EAPA allegation by clicking on the field entitled "Report  
Enforce and Protect Act Violations. " Second, trade users may also  access the EAPA Portal via the 
EAPA website at https://cbp.gov/trade/trade -enforcement/tftea/eapa  by clicking the field titled  
"Filing an EAPA Allegation. " To submit an EAPA allegation in the  EAPA Portal, trade users mus t create 
a CBP user account first, at  https://www.login.gov/create -an-account . As new technology becomes  
available, CBP may replace the current process or utilize additional  methods for accepting EAPA 
allegations or requests for  investigations from Federal agencies.  
------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    In the EAPA Portal, parties to the investigation may view decisions  and public administrative 
record documents (including public versions  of documents associated with the i nvestigation), check 
the status of  the investigation, and submit factual information, written arguments,  and documents 
relevant to the investigation. The EAPA Portal also sends  notifications to the parties to the 
investigation with deadline  reminders and a ctions to be taken. In addition, when this final rule is  
effective, an alleger will be able to withdraw an allegation and a  Federal agency will be able to 
withdraw a request for an investigation  (referral) in the EAPA Portal. \2\ With a new case 
management system in  place, and CBP's extensive experience with the current EAPA process,  CBP 
is now ready to finalize the interim regulations, with several  modifications as described below.  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------  
    \2\ Guidance for trade users regarding the EAPA Portal, and  additional resources, such as a quick 
reference guide and a recorded  demonstration on how to access and navigate within the EAPA Portal,  
can be found on CBP' s website at https://www.cbp.gov/trade/trade -enforcement/tftea/eapa  when 
clicking on the field titled "Filing an  EAPA Allegation " at the bottom of the p age. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 4 - 
 
  II. Discussion of Comments  
    Although the interim regulatory amendments were promulgated without  prior public notice and 
comment procedure s pursuant to the agency  organization, procedure, and practice exemption in 
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A),  the IFR provided for the submission of public comments that would be  
considered by CBP before adopting the interim amendments as final. The  60-day public commen t 
period was set to end on October 21, 2016, but  was extended that day for an additional 60 days. 
The extended comment  period closed on December 20, 2016.  
    CBP received 17 submissions in response to the publication of the  interim regulations, each of 
them including comments on multiple  topics. The comments involved various aspects of the EAPA 
process, from  the initiation of an investigation to the adminis trative review of a  determination as to 
evasion. CBP reviewed all public comments received  in response to the interim final rule and made 
some changes to the  interim regulations based on those comments. In addition, CBP has  included 
some clarifications whe re needed to ensure a transparent  investigation process. A description of the 
public comments received,  along with CBP's analysis, are set forth below. The comments and  
responses have been grouped together by subpart of the EAPA  regulations, where appropri ate. 
General Provisions (Subpart A)  
    Subpart A (General Provisions) provides definitions of terms  relevant to the EAPA process, 
specifies the entries that may be the  subject of an allegation, identifies when a power of attorney is  
required, and addresse s the submission of business confidential  information. This subpart further 
sets forth the means by which CBP may  obtain information for EAPA proceedings, addresses the 
circumstances  when CBP may apply adverse inferences in an EAPA investigation and in  an 
administrative review, and details the reporting responsibilities in  case of public health and safety 
issues associated with an  investigation. Multiple comments were received regarding subpart A,  
dealing with questions on the various definitions in Sec.  1 65.1, and  the submission requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  165.3 and 165.5. Some  commenters requested clarification on certain aspects of the  
application of adverse inferences in case of a party's failure to  comply with CBP's request for 
information.  
    Comment:  Multiple commenters stated that CBP should not require the  identification of an 
importer as a condition for initiation of an  investigation. The commenters noted that Congress did 
not require the  identification of an importer of record and that by doing so , CBP could  be encouraging 
the proliferation of shell or paper companies to act as  importers. The commenters further stated 
that TFTEA instructed CBP to  investigate any allegation that reasonably suggests that covered  
merchandise has been entered into the customs territory of the United  States through evasion. 
Therefore, the commenters suggest that CBP  should remove the phrase "by an importer " in 
Sec.  165.1 in the  "allegation " definition, and, for the same reason, remove references  to the 
identification of  an importer in various sections of part 165,  such as Sec. Sec.  165.4(c)(3), 
165.11(b)(3) and 165.14(b)(1). One  commenter referenced the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) 
and the  statute's goal to bar against unauthorized disclosure by government  officia ls of confidential 
information received in the course of their  employment or official duties, which could include the 
identity of an  importer. The commenter argued that CBP may protect the identity of an  importer 
without having to narrow the scope of the investigation by  simply not requiring the specific 
identification of an importer of  record in an allegation.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenters' suggestion to remove  language in the regulations 
that requires that an alleger provide the  identity of the importer against whom an allegation is filed. 
The text  of 19 U.S.C. 1517(b)(2) refers to ". . . an allegation that a person  has entered covered 
merchandise . . . " (emphasis added), which  requires the specific identification of an importer. 
Removing the  reference to "a person, " i.e., an importer, in the regulations, would  require a statutory 
change prior to making a change in the regulation.  
 
[[Page 19241]]  
 
Furthermore, CBP considers the requirements in the regulations to be  consistent with the 
Trade  Secrets Act. While the Trade Secrets Act  protects against the unauthorized disclosure of 
confidential  information, CBP does not consider the identity of the importer to be  confidential. In 
fact, Sec.  165.4(c)(3) specifically states that the  name  and address of an importer against whom 
the allegation is brought  is not protected as business confidential information.  
    Comment: One commenter requested that an illustrative list of  examples of evasion schemes be 
included in the definition of "evade or evasion " in Sec.  165.1.  
    Response: CBP agrees with the commenter that it would be helpful to  add some examples of 
evasion to the definition, such as the  transshipment, misclassification and/or undervaluation of G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 5 - 
 
  covered  merchandise. Accordingly, CBP has added such language at the end of the  definition of 
"evade or evasion " in Sec.  165.1.  
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EAPA provisions  would be misused by 
domestic interested parties or competitors in an  effort to disrupt the supp ly chains of foreign 
producers and U.S.  importers. Another commenter raised the concern that the EAPA  provisions have 
the potential to brand innocent importers as evaders of  the law, regardless of their good faith efforts 
to comply with AD/CVD  orders.  
    Response: While CBP understands these concerns, CBP carefully  investigates and reviews the 
evidence, in accordance with all  applicable legal requirements, at each stage of the process before  
making a determination as to evasion.  
    Comment: Multiple comme nters asked CBP to expand the list of  interested parties who are 
allowed to participate in EAPA  investigations. The commenters argued that the limitation in the  
interim regulations deprives CBP of the resources, experience, and  insights from other domestic 
producers or importers, especially in  cases when Federal agencies request an investigation, such 
that the  domestic industry affected by the evasion would have no right to  provide information or 
otherwise participate in the investigation. One  of the commenters suggested to amend the regulation 
to include in an  EAPA investigation, whether initiated pursuant to the filing of an  allegation by an 
interested party or pursuant to a request by a Federal  agency, "any other party meeting the 
definition of "interested  party" in Sec.  165.1 that submits an entry of appearance to CBP in a  timely 
fashion, " in addition to the interested party who filed an  allegation and the importer who allegedly 
engaged in evasion. Two other  commenters stated that CBP should expa nd the regulatory definition 
of "interested party " to align with the broader statutory definition of  the "United States importer " in 
section 517(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Tariff  Act of 1930.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenters' requests to expand the  list of interested parties 
who are allowed to participate in EAPA  investigations. The primary focus of CBP's determination in 
an EAPA  investigation is narrow, i.e., whether evasion, as defined by 19 U.S.C.  1517(a)(5), occurred 
or not. CBP's current EAPA pr ocess does not allow  for interested parties other than the alleger to 
participate during the  first 90 days of an investigation.  
    Moreover, the regulatory definition of the term "interested  party" aligns with the statutory 
definition. See 19 U.S.C.  1517( a)(6)(A) and 19 CFR 165.1. Both provisions allow for interested  
parties to participate in an investigation by filing an allegation. The  statutory definition for "interested 
party " includes, inter alia, the  United States importer of covered merchandise. The  regulatory  
definition of an "interested party " in Sec.  165.1, which is not  limited to importers of record, but 
includes any importer of covered  merchandise, including the party against whom the allegation is  
brought, is consistent with the statutory defi nition.  
    Comment: One commenter suggested to limit the definition of the  term "importer " to an importer 
of record of covered merchandise and  amend the definition of "interested party " in Sec.  165.1  
accordingly. The commenter argued that CBP did not provide any reason  for expanding the definition 
beyond the importer of record, and thus  only the alleger and alleged evader should be included in 
the definition.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's definition of  "importer. " In current practice , 
allegations are usually made against  importers of record of covered merchandise, in accordance with 
the statute. However, CBP has defined the term "importer " by regulation  in 19 CFR 101.1 as the 
importer of record, the consignee, the actual  owner of the merchandise, or the transferee of the 
merchandise, and CBP  may initiate investigations against such parties if an allegation  reasonably 
suggests that evasion is occurring.  
    Comment: Multiple commenters asked for clarification of the  interaction of the e vasion provisions 
with the penalties provision  (section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1592)),  
the impact of a prior disclosure pursuant to section 592(c)(4) on an  EAPA investigation, and 
identification of appropriate cases involving  AD/CVD orders where penalties would be contemplated 
and potentially  assessed. One of the commenters opined that an EAPA investigation is  not a 
section  592 investigation and cannot lead to a section 592  penalties matter; thus, the investigation 
definition i n Sec.  165.1  should be deleted. Another commenter suggested that CBP clarify in  
Sec.  165.28(a) that CBP is not required to initiate any other actions,  including a section 592 
proceeding. Lastly, a commenter asked for the  revision of Sec.  165.11 to expre ssly provide that the 
filing of an  evasion allegation operates as a "formal investigation " to preclude  the acceptance of a 
prior disclosure, with regard to the same set of  facts, importer(s), entries and AD/CVD orders, under 
19 U.S.C. 1592.  
    Response: C BP welcomes the opportunity to provide some  clarification in response to the 
comments received on the interaction  between an EAPA investigation and section 592 actions, as 
well as the  impact of a prior disclosure on an EAPA investigation. An importer may  be precluded 
from filing a prior disclosure for violations discovered  during the course of an EAPA investigation but G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 6 - 
 
  may not be precluded  from filing a prior disclosure for violations discovered outside of the  course of 
the EAPA investigation. The determination of whether a prior  disclosure is accepted requires a 
fact-specific assessment as to the  importer(s), entries and AD/CVD order(s) involved. In addition, 
CBP disagrees with the commenter's request for a regulatory change to the  "investigation " definition 
in Sec.  165.1 as the definition is  accurate and should not be removed. CBP retains the discretion to  
accept or reject a prior disclosure for any facts that were not  discovered during the course of an 
EAPA investigation.  
    Further, CBP does no t agree with the amendment of Sec.  165.28(a),  as one of the commenters 
suggested. CBP appreciates the opportunity to  clarify that CBP is not required to initiate any other 
actions,  including section 592 proceedings. If CBP finds that entries are  already l iquidated when an 
affirmative determination as to evasion is  made, then CBP's recourse to recover the lost duties is to 
initiate a  section 592 proceeding or any other appropriate action separate from  the EAPA proceeding. 
If TRLED makes an affirmative deter mination of  evasion, pursuant to Sec.  165.27, a Center of 
Excellence and Expertise  (Center) will  
 
[[Page 19242]]  
 
be directed to collect cash deposits and take other enforcement actions  as necessary. TRLED may 
also refer the case to other components withi n CBP and partner government agencies (PGAs) to 
review the facts and  perhaps assess a penalty, depending on the circumstances.  
    Finally, CBP disagrees with the last commenter, that an EAPA  investigation operates as a formal 
investigation and precludes p rior disclosure under 19 U.S.C. 1592. The importer who is alleged to 
have engaged in evasion will have the burden to show that it is not aware of  an ongoing investigation. 
If the importer is able to do so, and meets  all other relevant criteria, then the im porter may have 
the opportunity  to file a prior disclosure with CBP.  
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the one -year threshold for  entries that may be the 
subject of an allegation is too narrow as it  severely restricts the allegations that can be  pursued, 
and thus should  be eliminated. One of the commenters argued that there is no statutory  support for 
this limitation. Another commenter suggested the  application of a statute of limitations (SOL) that 
is consistent with  the SOL for violations of se ction 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as  amended, in 
order to provide interested parties with sufficient time to  uncover evasion and prepare an allegation. 
See 19 U.S.C. 1621. Finally,  one commenter expressed support for the regulation and claimed that  
only entries made within one year before receipt of an allegation may  be the subject of an allegation.  
    Response: CBP appreciates the comments but disagrees that CBP is  limited to investigating 
entries of merchandise made within one year  before the receipt of an allegation. As stated in the 
preamble of the  IFR, CBP deemed a one -year period for an EAPA investigation appropriate  as it 
would allow for a timely determination using current and readily  available information, and prevent 
situations where CBP would encounter  entries that were already liquidated, or importers that are no 
longer  active. See 81 FR 56477, at 56479. Notwithstanding the above, the  regulations provide CBP 
with the discretion to investigate other  entries of such covered merchandise, and CBP will exercise 
such authority on a case -by-case basis. See 19 CFR 165.2.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that Sec.  165.3 does not specify  what action CBP will take if 
the required proof of execution of a power  of attorney is missing.  
    Response: CBP agrees with the commenter's statement and,  accordingly, has added a new 
paragraph (f) in Sec.  165.3, clarifying  that CBP will reject any submission, and not consider or place 
such submission on the administrative record, if a party has not provided  proof of execution of a 
power of attorney to CBP, as required pursuant  to the first sentence of paragraph (e) of Sec.  165.3, 
within five  business days of an interested party's first submission during an  investigation or 
administrative review.  CBP further added language in  the new paragraph (f), that CBP will reject 
any submission, and not  consider or place such submission on the administrative record, if a  party 
has not provided proof of authority to execute a power of  attorney pursuant to par agraph (c) of 
Sec.  165.3 upon CBP's request.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that CBP did not specify what action  it may take if a submission 
fails to meet the form requirements of  Sec.  165.5(b)(1), and thus proposed to add a 
paragraph  (b)(4) to  includ e the rejection of a submission as a consequence for failure to  meet those 
requirements.  
    Response: CBP welcomes the opportunity to clarify that CBP will  reject a submission that does 
not fulfill the form requirements of  Sec.  165.5(b)(1), and will not consider or place it on the  
administrative record. Accordingly, CBP added a new paragraph (b)(4) in  Sec.  165.5 to reflect this 
clarification. For the same reasons, CBP  amended Sec.  165.41(f) to clarify that CBP will reject a 
request for  administrative re view if the content requirements in paragraph (f) are  not met.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 7 - 
 
      Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear whether the person  making a submission 
pursuant to Sec.  165.5(b)(2) can be the authorized  representative of the party, the party itself, or  
both. The commenter  stated that the final regulation should clarify who needs to sign each  type of 
certification.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's statement. The interim  regulation is clear as it 
reads "on behalf of, " allowing for an  authorized representative, such as an attorney, in addition to 
the party itself to make the certification. Moreover, thi s has not been an  issue in practice.  
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that adverse inferences  may be imposed on a 
party if an importer complies with CBP's request,  but the foreign supplier does not. The commenter 
requested  clarification as to w hether evasion could be found in the described  scenario with regard 
to the foreign supplier, but not the importer, and  what such a finding would mean in terms of the 
application of duties or  other measures. Another commenter expressed a similar concern and asked  
for Sec.  165.5 to be amended to include a requirement that CBP notify  the importer whenever CBP 
issues a questionnaire to a foreign supplier  to give the importer the opportunity to leverage its 
relationship with  the supplier to obtain th e supplier's full cooperation and avoid  adverse inferences.  
    Response: A determination of evasion is based on an analysis of the  record, including responses 
to requests for information by both the  U.S. importer and foreign manufacturer. The scenario whe re 
one party  cooperates to the best of its ability, and another does not, creates a  difficult situation for 
CBP to conduct its analysis, and thus evasion  could still be found, depending on the available 
information. CBP  evaluates carefully on a case -by-case basis and may apply adverse  inferences as 
to the party not acting to the best of its ability to  cooperate with the investigation, in accordance 
with 19 U.S.C.  1517(c)(3)(B). The consequences, if any, that flow from such a finding  will vary on 
a case -by-case basis. With regard to the suggestion to  include a notification requirement in 
Sec.  165.5, CBP provides the  public versions of all documents, including questionnaires, to all  
parties to the investigation and does not believe that any additional  notific ations are necessary.  
    Comment: Two commenters noted that the use of a party's behavior in  a prior proceeding should 
not be an indicator for whether to apply  adverse inferences in the current proceeding, as stated in 
Sec. 165.6(b), arguing that only the  party's behavior in the current  proceeding should be relevant 
for adverse inferences. Another commenter  asked CBP to amend paragraph (b) to clarify the 
distinction between the  intent of paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) by stating that CBP may  select 
from f acts otherwise available, including information from a  prior determination in another CBP 
investigation, when applying adverse  inferences under paragraph (a).  
    One of the commenters also stated that the way paragraph (c) of  Sec.  165.6 is written, it un fairly 
applies adverse inferences even if  the information sought is already on the record. According to the  
commenter, it should be irrelevant which party provided the information  as long as the information 
was provided to CBP.  
    Response: CBP disagrees;  section 165.6, as written, accurately  reflects the statutory language. 
Both the statute and the regulation  distinguish between adverse inferences to be applied when a 
party fails  to cooperate and comply with CBP's request for more information  
 
[[Page 1924 3]] 
 
in the current proceeding (Sec.  165.6(a) and section 412(b)(1)(A) of  TFTEA), and adverse 
inferences to be applied based on a prior  determination in another CBP proceeding, or any other 
available  information (Sec.  165.6(b) and section 412(b)(2)(B) an d (C) of TFTEA).  However, to be 
clearer and avoid any confusion, CBP has revised Sec.  165.6(b) so the regulatory language more 
closely resembles the  statutory language in section 412(b)(2) of TFTEA, without making any  changes 
to the substance of the langua ge. In addition, CBP further  amended Sec.  165.6(b) to clarify that 
CBP may only consider "any other available information " that has been placed on the  administrative 
record for purposes of applying adverse inferences.  
    CBP believes that when it comes to adverse inferences, the  determination to be made is whether 
the party from whom CBP requested  information provided the information. The fact that another 
party had  already provided information to CBP does not relieve the party of its  obligation to provide 
the requested information, as the other party's  submission may have been incorrect or incomplete. 
Lastly, as to the  commenter's unfairness argument, the regulations allow for due process  via 
administrative review by C BP and judicial review by the U.S. Court  of International Trade (CIT) in 
case an interested party believes that  adverse inferences were inappropriately applied.  
    Comment: One commenter talked about instances where CBP requests  information from a foreign  
government and receives no response, and  stated that, in such situations, CBP would need to 
examine the facts  available on the record to determine how to address the failure to  respond, and 
reach a determination based on those facts available.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 8 - 
 
      Respons e: CBP agrees as 19 U.S.C. 1517(c)(2)(a)(iv) and (c)(3)  clearly state that CBP cannot 
apply adverse inferences as a result of  failure of a foreign government to respond to a CBP 
information  request. CBP will make a determination based on the facts availabl e on  the 
administrative record, which may include, among other things,  adverse inferences made against 
other interested parties.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that the "to the best of its  ability " standard in Sec.  165.6(a) 
is vague and lacks a definit ion. The commenter argued that it is unclear as to what level of 
cooperation  with CBP's information request is acceptable and what level is  insufficient, making the 
regulatory language unfair.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's statement. CBP  ensures  that the request 
procedure is transparent to those parties involved in  an EAPA investigation by providing all 
documents on the administrative  record. Further, the parties to the investigation, which include the  
party filing the allegation and the importer, and the foreign producer  or exporter of the covered 
merchandise, are given sufficient time  during an EAPA investigation to gather and provide the 
requested  information to CBP. CBP then carefully evaluates the information on a  case-by-case basis 
to determine whether the party cooperated and  complied with CBP's request to the best of its ability 
and takes into  account the specific circumstances surrounding each request before  deciding whether 
adverse inferences are appropriate. The regulations  also provide for due process in the form of 
administrative review and  judicial review in cases where the importer is of the opinion that the  "to 
the best of its ability " standard was met, but CBP nonetheless  applied adverse inferences.  
B. Initiation of Investig ations (Subpart B)  
    Subpart B (Initiation of Investigations) deals with the initiation  of an investigation, such as the 
filing of an allegation by an  interested party or a request for investigation (referral) by another  
Federal agency, specifies the date of receipt of an allegation, and  discusses the consolidation of 
allegations, as well as referrals to the  Department of Commerce (Commerce) to determine whether 
merchandise  described in the allegation is properly within the scope of an AD /CVD order. 
Commenters submitted questions on the availability of technical  assistance and guidance for small 
businesses and requested additional  methods for withdrawal of allegations and requests from Federal  
agencies. CBP also received several comments s urrounding the process of  the consolidation of 
allegations, and CBP's notification procedures.  Lastly, commenters asked for additional information 
about the timing of  CBP's scope referral and Commerce's scope proceeding.  
    Comment: While one commenter su pported the requirement in Sec.  165.11(e) for CBP to provide 
technical assistance and guidance to small  businesses, another commenter was concerned with the 
provision and  stated that CBP should not assist small businesses with the preparation  and filing of  
an allegation. The commenter argued that it should be the  filing party's responsibility to meet the 
filing requirements in order  to maintain a fair and transparent investigation.  
    Response: CBP appreciates the comments. Small businesses are  entitled to  technical assistance, 
upon request, from CBP if they  satisfy the applicable standards set forth in 15 U.S.C. 632 and 13  CFR 
part 121. CBP notes that section 411(b)(4)(E) of TFTEA requires the  provision of technical assistance 
and advice to eligible small  businesses to prepare and submit an allegation. Furthermore, CBP  
encourages filings by small and medium businesses and continues to  provide technical assistance to 
those businesses upon request.  
    Comment: One commenter suggested that CBP include a parag raph (f)  in Sec.  165.11, limiting 
communications with CBP to the parties to the  investigation. The commenter asked CBP not to 
publicize the filing of  an allegation or accept or respond to any unsolicited oral  communication 
concerning the allegation or inv estigation from any  person other than from a party to the 
investigation prior to a  determination to not initiate an investigation under Sec.  165.15, or a  
determination as to evasion under Sec.  165.27(a).  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's r equest to include a  paragraph (f) in Sec.  165.11 
that would limit communications to the  parties to the investigation. CBP believes that the notice of  
initiation of an investigation, which includes facts and evidence from  the submitted allegation, is the 
best time at which to notify all  parties to the investigation, as well as the public, in an effort to  make 
the EAPA proceedings as transparent as possible. If, and when,  unsolicited information is submitted 
to CBP regarding an allegation or  investigation, C BP has the discretion to decide, throughout the  
investigation, if it will place this information on the administrative  record or not (including prior to 
the notice of initiation of an  investigation).  
    Comment: Multiple commenters disagreed with the term  "date of  receipt " in Sec.  165.12(a). The 
commenters argued that the overall  intent of TFTEA is for CBP to proceed swiftly and adhere to strict  
deadlines, but claimed that the way the interim regulation is written,  the date of receipt is entirely 
within CBP's control, and thus the  regulatory language runs counter to the statutory language that G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 9 - 
 
  states  unambiguously that not later than 15 business days after receiving an  allegation, CBP shall 
initiate an investigation. See 19 U.S.C.  1517(b)(1). For t he same reasons, additional commenters 
requested that  CBP specify the exact number of days within which CBP is required to  issue 
 
[[Page 19244]]  
 
an acknowledgment of receipt, one of the suggestions being that the  deadline is no later than 
two days after r eceipt of the allegation.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenters' request to redefine  the term "date of receipt " and 
specify an exact number of days within  which CBP issues an acknowledgment of receipt of an 
allegation. It is  clearly stated in the  regulation that an allegation is received when  CBP acknowledges 
a properly filed allegation. An allegation cannot be  considered to be received until it is properly filed, 
i.e., the  allegation contains all the information and certifications required  pursua nt to Sec.  165.11. 
The statute and interim regulations provide  CBP the flexibility to properly examine the allegations 
as resources  allow. Initiating an investigation within 15 business days of an  allegation being in CBP's 
possession could lead to an inef ficient use  of CBP's resources, as poorly filed allegations or 
incomplete  allegations would cause CBP to perform work that should have been done  by the alleger.  
    Comment: One commenter called attention to a scenario that could  arise in the context of an 
interaction between Sec.  165.12 (date of  receipt of an allegation) and Sec.  165.2 (entries dating 
back to one  year before receipt of an allegation). The comme nter stated that,  depending on the time 
of receipt of the allegation by CBP pursuant to  Sec.  165.12, the time period for investigating entries 
made within one  year prior to CBP's receipt of the allegation could become shorter  unintentionally if 
CBP takes time to acknowledge the receipt of the  allegation, and thus entries of allegedly covered 
merchandise could  potentially end up outside of the one -year period from the date of  receipt, as 
specified in Sec.  165.2.  
    Response: CBP disagrees that the regulat ion should be changed to  cover entries made within 
one year before the original date of  submission of the allegation, instead of the date of receipt of 
the allegation. CBP acknowledges that the scenario described above could  make it difficult in certain 
instances to cover the alleged actions in  the time frame set forth in Sec.  165.2. However, as 
mentioned above in  response to another comment, it is in CBP's discretion to investigate  other 
entries of covered merchandise, i.e., entries outside of the one -year time frame, if the circumstances 
warrant.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that CBP should amend Sec.  165.12(b)  to provide for 
consequences for withdrawing an allegation, such as  prohibiting re -submission of a new allegation 
for a specified time  period after withdrawal. In addition, the commenter stated that there  should be 
consequences for providing false allegations.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter that consequences should  be tied to a withdrawal 
of an allegation. CBP further note s that  consequences for making false statements in EAPA 
investigations are  provided for in Sec.  165.5(b)(3).  
    Comment: One commenter asked CBP to amend Sec.  165.12(b) and Sec.  165.14(a) to allow for 
the withdrawal of a submission through any other  method approved or designated by CBP, in addition 
to email, to make  these provisions consistent with other provisions, such as Sec.  165.5(b)(1) and 
Sec.  165.11(a).  
    Response: CBP agrees with the commenter. One of the new  functionalities of the EAPA Portal  is 
the ability for parties to submit  withdrawal requests through this system as a method approved or  
designated by CBP. Accordingly, CBP has amended the language in  Sec. Sec.  165.12(b) and 
165.14(a) to allow for additional methods for  the submission of w ithdrawal requests. As mentioned 
above, this  functionality will be available in the EAPA Portal upon effectiveness  of this final rule.  
    Comment: One commenter asked CBP to consolidate allegations prior  to the initiation of an 
investigation, noting that the "reasonably  suggests " standard in Sec.  165.15(b)(2) is met in a case 
where  multiple importers are contributing to an evasion scheme, but each  importer -specific 
allegation may present, on its own, insufficient  information to satisfy the initiation stan dard. The 
commenter stated  that it would be imperative under those circumstances for CBP to  consider and 
consolidate the multiple allegations to meet the  "reasonably suggests " standard.  
    Response: Under Sec.  165.13(a), CBP has the authority to  consolid ate allegations at any point 
prior to the issuance of a  determination (even prior to the initiation of an investigation) and  may do 
so if certain criteria set forth in Sec.  165.13(b) are met.  
    Comment: One commenter suggested that CBP modify its regula tions to  grant the parties to the 
investigation an opportunity to comment on (or  object to) consolidation prior to any decision to 
consolidate. The  commenter argued that such a regulatory change would promote engagement  with 
the parties as to why or why no t consolidation would be beneficial  or burdensome.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 10 - 
 
      Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to modify  the regulatory language. 
The interim regulations already include the  ability for comments to be placed on the administrative 
record  regarding consolidation of allegations once interim measures are  announced. Pursuant to 
Sec.  165.23(c), the parties to the  investigation have the opportunity to submit factual information 
up to  day 200 of the investigation. Relatedly, CBP has revised the reg ulatory  language in 
Sec.  165.23(c)(2) providing CBP with the discretion to  officially extend the 200 -day deadline for 
providing factual  information, as discussed in more detail in section III below.  
    Comment: One commenter wrote that a consolidation of allegations  does not seem appropriate 
in evasion investigations because only the  importer is submitting the import declaration as to 
whether merchandise  is covered by an AD/CVD order, and only the im porter may evade an AD/CVD 
order. The commenter opined that a mere similarity of covered  merchandise should not be the basis 
for a claim of evasion and, thus,  not a basis for consolidation.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter. Each EAPA allegati on regarding an importer stands 
on its own merit. CBP judiciously uses the  consolidation ability and bases consolidation on various 
criteria, such  as those listed in Sec.  165.13(b)(1) -(4). When allegations against  importers are 
consolidated at the interim  measures point, it is because  there is reasonable suspicion that all the 
importers are engaged in  evasion.  
    Comment: Two commenters stated that CBP should allow for the filing  of one allegation against 
multiple importers if they are involved  together i n a duty evasion scheme. Given that the entities 
involved in  an evasion may use a host of different importers of record as alter  egos by which to 
improperly enter goods, limiting an allegation to a  single importer would decrease efficiency for filers 
of allegations and  CBP, and increase the burden to determine which importer was involved  in an 
evasion. One of the commenters added that if confidentiality is a  concern, CBP should implement an 
administrative protective order (APO)  process in such cases.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with both commenters. Every EAPA allegation  stands on its own. 
Allowing one allegation against multiple importers  would be problematic if the alleger did not 
correctly name one of the  importers or provided insufficient facts against o ne of the importers.  In 
that instance, the alleger would have to withdraw the allegation  against all the importers in order to 
re-submit an allegation against  only one or more importers. In addition, since the statutory language  
in 19 U.S.C.  
 
[[Page 19245] ] 
 
1517(b)(2) ( ". . . allegation that a person has entered covered  merchandise . . . ") (emphasis added) 
is written in singular form,  allowing allegations against more than one importer would be  inconsistent 
with the current statutory language and would req uire a  statutory change. Nonetheless, CBP may 
consolidate allegations under  certain circumstances. However, as explained in more detail below, 
CBP will provide for the use of APOs as part of the EAPA process going  forward.  
    Comment: Multiple commenters voiced a concern regarding the 95 -day period for notification of 
CBP's decision to initiate an investigation  pursuant to Sec.  165.15(d)(1). The commenters argued 
that such a  lengthy delay in notifying the alleged evader about the initiation of  an investig ation could 
impede an importer's due process rights by  significantly limiting the time to prepare a defense. It 
could deprive  the alleged evader of an opportunity to provide information or  arguments until after 
the interim measures are in effect. For similar  reasons, another commenter asked for immediate 
publication of notice of  the initiation of an investigation to enhance transparency.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenters' suggestion that CBP  issue a notice of initiation of 
an investigatio n earlier than 95  calendar days after a decision to initiate has been made. CBP needs  
adequate time to investigate the alleged evader's actions, before  notifying the parties to the 
investigation about the initiation of an  investigation. Issuing a notice of  initiation early would allow 
the alleged evader to change its tactics in order to disrupt CBP's  investigatory efforts. Pursuant to 
19 U.S.C. 1517(b)(1), CBP must make  a decision as to whether the allegation reasonably suggests 
evasion  within 15 business d ays of receiving a properly filed allegation in  order to initiate an 
investigation. No later than 90 calendar days  after commencing an investigation, CBP must make a 
decision as to  whether there is reasonable suspicion that covered merchandise has been  entered 
into the U.S. customs territory through evasion. If CBP finds  reasonable suspicion, CBP issues a 
combined notice of initiation of  investigation and interim measures within five business days of that  
decision. Alternatively, if no interim measures are taken, CBP may  issue a notice of initiation of 
investigation only, by day 95 of the  case. Thus, for ease of administrability of this regulation and 
others  in part 165 that provide for the notification of decisions five  business days after a decision 
has be en made, CBP has revised Sec.  165.15(d)(1). The revised regulation states in the first 
sentence that  CBP will issue a notice of its decision to initiate an investigation to  all parties to the 
investigation no later than five business days after  day 90 of t he investigation, removing the current G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 11 - 
 
  reference to the 95 -calendar -day period. For consistency purposes, CBP also has changed the  
second  sentence in paragraph (d)(1) to state that in case of interim  measures, a notice to all parties 
to the investigation w ill occur no  later than five business days after day 90 of the investigation.  
    Furthermore, this change will make the regulatory language  consistent with the statutory 
language, which only mentions a 90 -day timeline, and will also create uniformity for the processes 
for initiating and notifying of an investigation, and for taking and  notifying of interim measures. 
Notwithstanding those time frames, CBP  may make a decision earlier than 90 days if it is ready to 
do so after  a thorough investigation and not ify the parties to the investigation  within five business 
days of that decision. Additionally, when revising  Sec.  165.15(d)(1), CBP has replaced the word 
"notification " in the  existing regulation with "notice " since CBP serves an actual notice  of initiati on 
of an investigation on the parties to the investigation,  as opposed to notification of the parties in 
some other fashion.  
    Comment: One commenter asked CBP to amend Sec.  165.15(d) to  provide that CBP notify not 
only the interested party who filed the  allegation, but also the importer alleged to have engaged in 
evasion in  a case where CBP determines to not initiate an investigation.  
    Response: CBP does not agree with the commenter to amend the  regulation. In order to 
discourage any potentia l retaliatory actions by  the alleged evader against the alleging party, CBP 
will not notify the  alleged evader in case of a decision to not initiate an investigation.  If CBP 
determines to not initiate an investigation due to insufficient  evidence that ther e is a likelihood of 
evasion, CBP does not see a need  to make the alleged evader's name public in a notice to not initiate 
an investigation.  
    Comment: One commenter asked that CBP provide for the opportunity  to request an 
administrative review of a deci sion to not initiate an  investigation so that the Commissioner of CBP 
may assess whether the  decision was rendered in accordance with the legislative intent of a  
functioning mechanism for potential duty evasion and the plain language  of the EAPA.  
    Respo nse: Under the plain language of paragraph (f) of 19 U.S.C.  1517, administrative review 
may be requested for determinations made  under 19 U.S.C. 1517(c). No provision in the statute 
authorizes CBP to  conduct an administrative review of a decision to not in itiate an  investigation, 
which is not a determination under 19 U.S.C. 1517(c).  Furthermore, CBP provides technical 
assistance to allegers on  strengthening their allegations as a matter of practice and allegers  have 
the opportunity to refile insufficient al legations as more  information becomes available which would 
show that potential evasion  is occurring.  
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations be revised  to create a single time 
frame for the notification of decisions to  initiate and to not initiate an investigation and suggested 
both time  frames be within 30 days of receipt of an allegation.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's recommendation for the  creation of a single time 
frame for the notification of CBP's decisions  to initiate and to not initiate. Due to the different nature 
of these  decisions, it is not practical to have one single timeframe for CBP to  follow. There are 
different evidentiary standards and different timing  requirements attached to the two types of 
decisi ons. As mentioned  above, CBP has 15 business days to determine whether to initiate or to  not 
initiate an investigation under the "reasonably suggests " standard. If CBP determines that it will not 
initiate an investigation,  it will notify the alleger within  five business days of that decision  pursuant 
to Sec.  165.15(d). If CBP determines within 15 business days  of a properly filed allegation that it 
will initiate an investigation,  CBP usually takes 90 calendar days to determine whether "reasonable  
suspicion " exists before making a decision to implement interim  measures (or not) and informing 
the alleger and importer in case of a  decision to implement interim measures. Thus, a notification 
30 days  after receipt of an allegation, as suggested by the commenter,  is generally too short a time 
frame for CBP to examine all the facts and  both determine whether to initiate an investigation and 
whether there  is reasonable suspicion that evasion is occurring.  
    Comment: One commenter asked CBP to specify how CBP will notify of  its decision to initiate, and 
asked CBP to require parties making  allegations to provide certain information, such as the name of 
a contact person, mailing and email address of the impo rter alleged to  have evaded, the foreign 
producer or exporter of covered merchandise,  and the government of the country from  
 
[[Page 19246]]  
 
which the covered merchandise was exported.  
    Response: CBP has been providing notices of initiation of an  investigation to the parties to the 
investigation pursuant to Sec.  165.15(d)(1) via email. With the implementation of the EAPA Portal, 
CBP notifies the parties to the investigation through th e system via an  email to the alleging party 
and the alleged evader. In addition, CBP  publishes public versions of the notices of initiation of an  
investigation on its website. Further, to respond to the second part of  the comment, CBP already G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 12 - 
 
  requires name  and address for importers; any  additional specific contact information would be too 
burdensome for  allegers to include in an allegation, as not all the contact  information the commenter 
listed above is relevant, and, in some  instances, it is already publi cly available. CBP believes that  
requiring this additional information would hinder the submission of  allegations, without benefit to 
the EAPA investigation process.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that CBP should add language that  would authorize CBP to  
self-initiate cases where the criteria in Sec.  165.15(b) are met.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter. An amendment of Sec.  165.15(b) would require a 
statutory change, as 19 U.S.C. 1517(b)(1) and  (b)(3) allow for the initiation of an investigat ion 
pursuant to the  submission of an allegation by an interested party or a request by  another Federal 
agency, but not self -initiation by CBP.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that the "reasonably suggests " standard in Sec.  165.15(b)(2) 
burdens domestic producers having to  prove evasion at the outset in order to have an investigation  
initiated, whereas the statute only asks for information reasonably  available to the party who filed 
the allegation. See 19 U.S.C.  1517(b)(2)(B).  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C.  1517(b)(2)(B), the 
allegation must be accompanied by information  reasonably available to the party who filed the 
allegation. However,  the threshold for initiating an investigation is that the information  provided b y 
the alleger reasonably suggests that evasion occurred,  pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1517(b)(1), which is 
the same standard as in  Sec.  165.15(b)(2). The regulatory language does not unduly burden the  
alleger by imposing a stricter standard. Moreover, CBP evalua tes on a  case-by-case basis the merits 
of each allegation and decides if the  "reasonably suggests " standard for initiation of an investigation 
is met. 
    Comment: One commenter suggested that CBP periodically publish  examples of information that 
was deeme d reasonably available to the  interested party and sufficient to support an allegation in 
prior investigations, as well as examples of information sufficient to meet  the initiation standard.  
    Response: CBP currently informs the public through outreach to the  industry in the form of 
presentations on EAPA and provides technical  assistance and guidance when allegations are filed. In 
addition, as  mentioned above, CBP publishes public versions o f notices of initiation  of an investigation 
on CBP.gov , providing examples of information that  meets the initiation standard.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that CBP should urge Commerce t o make  public the procedures 
it intends to use in case of a covered  merchandise referral and include provisions to allow interested 
parties  to file comments.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter. Commerce decides how to  best respond to covered 
merchandise referrals in EAPA investigations,  according to its authority and current practices. 
Moreover, the  referral process has been working well between the two agencies and CBP  does not 
see a need for a change.  
    Comment: One commenter supported the r equirement in Sec.  165.16  that CBP refer a scope 
issue to Commerce at any point after receipt of  the allegation, whereas a second commenter stated 
that CBP should,  where possible, wait until after the issuance of interim measures to  request a 
covered merc handise determination from Commerce. The second  commenter argued that if CBP 
requested a covered merchandise  determination prior to interim measures, then the covered 
merchandise  referral might be the first time that an importer or other party  learned abou t the 
evasion proceedings, which could undermine CBP's law  enforcement interest to quickly investigate 
the allegations and gather  information prior to issuing interim measures. In addition, the second  
commenter asked CBP to encourage Commerce to act expedi tiously when  processing a covered 
merchandise referral.  
    Response: CBP appreciates the comments. CBP decides on a case -by-case basis whether there is 
a need to refer scope issues to Commerce.  According to Sec.  165.16(a), CBP may refer the issue 
to Comm erce for  Commerce to determine whether imported merchandise constitutes covered  
merchandise, at any point after receiving the allegation. The statute  (19 U.S.C. 1517(b)(4)) does 
not limit CBP's ability to refer a scope  matter to Commerce within a certain t ime frame but allows 
CBP to make  this decision depending on the circumstances of the specific  investigation. With regard 
to the second part of the last comment, CBP  has no jurisdiction over Commerce's authority to set 
timelines, and no  influence over anoth er agency's internal processes.  
    Comment: One commenter asked that CBP modify the interim  regulations to further explain 
Commerce's covered merchandise  proceeding, clarify whether or not interested parties would be 
able to  participate in that proceeding , and whether Commerce's scope  determination is appealable.  
    Response: Commerce processes covered merchandise referrals and  determinations according to 
its own statutory and regulatory authority  and CBP cannot amend CBP's regulations to discuss or 
clarify Commerce's  authority and procedures. Nor is CBP in a position to opine on judicial  review G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 13 - 
 
  related to Commerce proceedings. We note, however, that Commerce  has promulgated regulations 
to address covered merchandise referrals  from CBP, at 19 CFR 351.227.  
    Comment: One commenter asked that CBP add a definition in Sec.  165.16(c) for the word 
"promptly. " The commenter also suggested that  CBP make a referral to Commerce within 30 days 
of initiation of the  investigation, and CBP provide notice of the referral within five days  of the referral.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's request to add a  definition for the word 
"promptly. " CBP makes determinations  regarding covered merchandise referrals on  a case -by-case 
basis and  refers scope issues to Commerce as appropriate. As stated above, CBP  may refer to 
Commerce at any point after receipt of an allegation.  Further, CBP notifies the parties to the 
investigation as to when CBP  sends the covered mercha ndise referral to Commerce.  
    Comment: One commenter argued that CBP should provide for a  mechanism for an interested 
party to seek relief when CBP improperly  refuses to refer a scope issue to Commerce and for 
situations where CBP  improperly suspends liq uidation of entries when the scope issue is  being 
disputed.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's argument. CBP works  with the appropriate 
internal subject matter experts during an EAPA  investigation and, in addition, works with the 
Customs Liai son Unit at  Commerce, and  
 
[[Page 19247]]  
 
refers cases to Commerce regarding the scope of an AD/CVD order when  appropriate. The covered 
merchandise referral to Commerce pursuant to  19 U.S.C. 1517(b)(4) is a specific authority for CBP 
to use in EAPA  invest igations, as needed, and should remain within CBP's discretion.  Apart from 
CBP's authority to refer issues to Commerce for a covered  merchandise determination, an interested 
party also has the ability to  seek resolution of a scope issue before Commerce pur suant to 
Commerce's  regulations found at 19 CFR 351.225 and 19 CFR 351.227. CBP does not  believe that 
an additional mechanism is needed in this rulemaking. With  regard to the second part of the 
comment, CBP does not believe that a  process is needed for a s ituation where the importer alleges 
that CBP  improperly suspended liquidation of entries when the scope was being  disputed. If CBP 
determines that there is reasonable suspicion that the  importer entered covered merchandise into 
the customs territory of the  United States, TRLED will instruct the Center to suspend liquidation of  
entries of such covered merchandise that entered on or after the date  of initiation of the investigation 
or extend the period for liquidating  each unliquidated entry of such covered m erchandise that 
entered before  the date of the initiation of the investigation, and take other  measures necessary to 
protect the revenue. CBP needs to conclude its  investigation to issue a determination as to evasion, 
and does not  overturn interim measures, such as the suspension of liquidation or the  extension of 
the liquidation period, until a determination has been  made.  
Investigation Procedures (Subpart C)  
    Subpart C (Investigation Procedures) includes provisions setting  forth the EAPA invest igation 
procedures, such as the maintenance of an  administrative record, the time period provided for an 
investigation  and the deadline for making a determination, the types and requirements  for the 
submission of factual information, and the issuance of in terim  measures. This subpart also describes 
CBP's authority to conduct  verifications of information, deals with the submission of written  
arguments to CBP and responses to written arguments, and finally sets  forth the process for the 
issuance of a determin ation as to evasion and  the assessment of duties and other actions in case of 
an affirmative  determination. Commenters submitted questions regarding public access  to the 
administrative record, questions surrounding the submission of  factual information, an d the interim 
measures process, as well as the  verification process.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear from the  regulations how and to what extent 
parties to the investigation would  be able to access public information during the course of the  
investigation or administrative review. The commenter asked that CBP  amend the regulations to 
include a provision that sets forth where CBP  would maintain an up -to-date public administrative 
record, how CBP  would guarantee access, and when and how C BP would share public  information.  
    Response: The EAPA Portal provides the parties to the investigation  with access to the public 
documents and public versions of documents  relating to the EAPA proceeding and allows the parties 
to the  investigation to v iew the public administrative record. In addition,  CBP publishes public 
versions of notices of initiation of an  investigation, notices of initiation of an investigation and interim  
measures, covered merchandise referrals, and determinations as to  evasion o n its website, in a 
timely manner. Finally, CBP appreciates  the opportunity to announce that CBP has started publishing 
public  versions of final administrative review determinations. \3\ CBP has  uploaded earlier public 
versions of final administrative revie w determinations to its website.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 14 - 
 
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    \3\ The final administrative review determinations may be found  online at 
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/trade -enforcement/tftea/eapa  by clicking on the  field titled "Request for 
Administrative Review, " and then on the blue "Final Administrative Determinations " button.  The 
published determinations may also be found online at https://www.cbp.gov/trade/trade -
enforcement/tftea/eapa/requests -administrative -review  by clicking on the field titled "Final 
Administrative Determination, " or on the blue "Final Administrative Determinations " button.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    Comment: While one commenter supported the opp ortunity for parties  to the investigation to 
submit factual information pursuant to Sec.  165.23(b), another commenter asked CBP to clarify in 
Sec.  165.23(a)  that CBP may request information from any party who has relevant  information.  
    Response: CBP ap preciates the comments. However, CBP disagrees with  the second commenter 
that a regulatory change is needed to clarify that  CBP may request information from any party who 
has relevant  information. The universe of persons from whom CBP may request  informati on pursuant 
to Sec.  165.23(a) is broad, and CBP does not  believe that it needs to be specifically defined.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that it would be useful for the  purpose of identifying an 
importer, especially in situations where  importers are i ncorporated under multiple different names, 
or when  several related companies act as importers of record through an agent,  that CBP include in 
the scope of an EAPA investigation activities  engaged in by companies related to an identified 
importer, which  support the allegation.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's suggestion. Although  an alleger is free to include 
information about the activities of a  company related to an identified importer in its allegation, the  
statutory language does not req uire the inclusion of such information.  Furthermore, such a 
requirement would create an additional barrier that  may inhibit the submission of some legitimate 
allegations.  
    Comment: One commenter supported the establishment of a service  list for purposes  of serving 
other parties with public versions of  documents, and asked CBP to amend the regulations to set forth 
the requirements for the maintenance of such a list.  
    Response: CBP does not agree with the commenter's request to add a  requirement for 
maintenance of a service list in the regulations. CBP  currently releases public versions of documents 
to the parties to the  investigation, which CBP believes is sufficient. Public documents and  public 
versions of documents are also available to the parties to the  investigation in the EAPA Portal.  
    Comment: Multiple commenters asked CBP to modify its regulations so  that parties can submit 
confidential documents via a secure electronic  filing system, as opposed to email, and allow 
attorneys and othe r interested parties to easily monitor the ongoing investigation. One  commenter 
also asked CBP to provide for the hand delivery of documents  if documents contain confidential 
information, or delivery by mail if  the document to be submitted exceeds a certai n size limit.  
    Response: The EAPA Portal allows parties to submit confidential  documents, and the parties to 
the investigation, as well as their  attorneys, are able to monitor the status of an EAPA proceeding.  
Further, CBP already allows for hand delive ry on a case -by-case basis,  in instances of voluminous 
submissions or the submission of  confidential documents. A party who wishes to hand -deliver 
documents  must file a request with TRLED and provide a reason why the documents  cannot be filed 
electronicall y. The regulation does not need to be  amended as the option of hand delivery is already 
included in Sec.  165.5(b)(1) as a method approved or designated by CBP. Regarding the  last 
 
[[Page 19248]]  
 
comment, delivery by mail is not allowed, but if there are s ize limitation issues with the EAPA Portal, 
parties may contact the EAPA  Investigations Branch at eapallegations@cbp.dhs.gov . 
    Comment: One commenter requested that CBP a dd a provision in the  regulations to allow for the 
filing of a "Bracketing Not Final " version of a submission first, followed by the final, public version  
the next business day. The commenter believes that this additional time  is necessary to review any 
business confidential information to make  sure that the public version is correct. The commenter 
argued that this  change would make CBP's regulations consistent with those of Commerce,  the U.S. 
International Trade Commission (ITC), and the CIT.  
    Response:  CBP disagrees with the commenter's request to allow for  the filing of a "Bracketing Not 
Final" version first, followed by a  final, public version the next business day. Section 165.4(a)(2) 
states  that the public version should be filed on the same date as  the business confidential version 
and gives CBP the opportunity to reject a  public version, if needed. Simultaneous filing ensures that 
the other  parties to the investigation timely receive documents, since only  public versions are G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 15 - 
 
  provided to other parties in an EAPA investigation.  Commerce, ITC, and CIT procedures differ in this 
regard, in that  confidential versions are provided to other parties under protective  orders.  
    Comment: One commenter asked CBP to modify Sec.  165.23(c)(1) to  set a deadl ine for service 
of the public version of a submission of  factual information, which currently is missing in the 
regulations.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter. Section 165.23, first  sentence, refers to 
Sec. Sec.  165.4 and 165.5 with regard to  the submission requirements. Specifically, 
Sec.  165.4(a)(2) addresses the  requirement to submit a public version on the same date as the 
business  confidential version.  
    Comment: One commenter asked CBP to clarify in Sec.  165.23(c)(2)  whether the serv ice 
requirement applies to the submission of all  factual information, or only to factual information 
submitted after a  certain point in the investigation. The commenter stated that pursuant  to 
Sec.  165.23(c)(2), parties submitting factual information are  required to serve on parties to the 
investigation a public version of  the submission. The commenter went on to say that if an alleging 
party  submitted factual information after the initial allegation, but prior  to the issuance of interim 
measures, it would  be unclear whether  service of that information on other parties would interfere 
with CBP's  enforcement efforts in case CBP had not yet notified certain parties of  the investigation.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's request to modify  Sec.  165.23(c)(2). The service 
requirements in Sec.  165.4 apply  throughout the investigation; there is no distinction in the  
regulation, or in practice, regarding the timing of the submission of  factual information. However, 
CBP wishes to clarify that any docu ments  submitted prior to the notice of initiation of an investigation 
will be  served by TRLED on the parties to the investigation soon after the  issuance of the notice, 
regardless of who submitted those documents.  For additional clarity, CBP added a senten ce to that 
effect at the end  of Sec.  165.15(e).  
    Comment: One commenter stated that CBP should adopt a regulation  that imposes interim 
measures if Commerce finds that imported  merchandise is covered by an AD/CVD order and that 
tolls the CBP  deadlines f or the completion of the investigation. Otherwise, the  commenter noted, if 
Commerce issues a scope determination which is  subject to judicial review and CBP's regulations do 
not toll CBP's  administrative deadlines during the pendency of judicial review, it  may be the case 
that an importer is labeled an "evader " even though the  underlying facts for the scope determination 
are subject to dispute.  The commenter opined that adding a regulation as described above would  
ensure that importers will not be labeled as duty evaders unless and  until all their due process rights 
have been exhausted.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter. CBP considers decisions  by various internal 
stakeholders as well as other government agencies  when reaching the decis ion to take interim 
measures, but CBP has  independent authority to determine if or when to impose interim  measures. 
CBP takes interim measures after careful examination of the  facts and information provided, 
concluding that there is reasonable  suspicion th at evasion has taken place. Judicial review of a scope  
determination should not put the EAPA investigation on hold because CBP  needs to timely continue 
its process, as provided in the regulations,  to fully investigate the facts relating to the allegation a nd 
make a  determination as to evasion. CBP notes that Congress, through the  statutory timelines set 
forth in EAPA, made clear that it intended  prompt action on the part of CBP.  
    Comment: One commenter requested that CBP amend Sec.  165.24(c) to  state that CBP will 
share the public administrative record with  Commerce upon issuing interim measures. The 
commenter argued that the  connection between Commerce's administration and en forcement of 
AD/CVD  orders and CBP's efforts to combat evasion under EAPA necessitates that  the agencies share 
information and work together to maximize  enforcement.  
    Response: CBP does not see a need to amend the regulations so CBP  may share the admini strative 
record with Commerce after the issuance of  interim measures. CBP regularly shares information with 
Commerce, based  on the circumstances of the case and in accordance with law.  
    Comment: One commenter asked CBP to clarify in Sec.  165.25 that  the verification process takes 
place sometime between initiation of the  investigation and the 200th calendar day after the initiation, 
that a  verification agenda is included, and modify the regulations to provide  for a verification report 
that CBP will place  on the administrative  record.  
    Response: CBP does not agree with the commenter that the  verification process must be 
completed by the 200th calendar day after  initiation of an investigation. Rather, verification generally 
occurs  after all new factual i nformation has been submitted to the  administrative record. The 
deadline for voluntary submission of new  factual information is established in Sec.  165.23. To clarify 
that CBP  may conduct verifications before and after the deadline for voluntary  submissio n of factual 
information, CBP has revised the language in  Sec.  165.25(b). In addition, CBP added a sentence in 
paragraph (b) to  confirm that the purpose of the verification is to verify the accuracy  of the 
information already placed on the administrative record.  Regarding the commenter's second request, G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 16 - 
 
  CBP already provides a  verification agenda to the parties to the investigation and does not  believe 
that it needs to be specifically stated in the regulation.  
    To respond to the commenter's request regar ding the verification  report, CBP added a new 
paragraph (c) stating that CBP will place a  report about the verification, i.e., the verification report, 
on the  administrative record. CBP will also require the party that underwent  the verification to place 
verification exhibits, which will generally  contain information compiled and verified by CBP at CBP's 
discretion  during the verification, on the administrative record. In accordance  with Sec.  165.4, CBP 
and the party that underwent the verification  will provide public versions of their verification 
documents, which  will be served on all parties to the  
 
[[Page 19249]]  
 
investigation. CBP will not accept voluntary submissions of new factual  information at the verification 
after the deadlin e for such  submissions, as referenced in Sec.  165.23. Further, parties to the  
investigation cannot submit rebuttal information to either CBP's  verification report or the verification 
exhibits. Parties to the  investigation, however, may submit to CBP writt en arguments in relation  to 
the verification report and/or its exhibits in accordance with Sec.  165.26.  
    CBP also added a new paragraph (d) stating that if CBP determines  that information discovered 
during a verification is relevant to the  investigation  and constitutes new factual information, CBP will 
place it on the administrative record separately, in accordance with Sec.  165.23, and allow the 
parties to the investigation to submit rebuttal  information.  
    Comment: One commenter expressed support of Sec.  165.26 but was  concerned that the 
50-page limit in paragraph (d) may be too short in  some cases. The commenter suggested that CBP 
explicitly state in the  regulation that it would increase the page limitation upon request when  good 
cause is shown.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's suggestion and  supports the regulation as 
currently written. Written arguments are a  summary of record evidence and new information is not 
permitted. CBP  believes that 50 pages is a reasonable limit and does no t see a need to  provide for 
exceptions in the regulation.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that CBP should clarify in Sec.  165.26(c) that CBP may request 
written arguments on any issue from any  interested party.  
    Response: CBP believes that Sec.  165.2 6(c) as currently written is  properly limited to the parties 
to the investigation. However, to make  the terminology in Sec.  165.26(c) clearer, CBP changed the 
regulatory  language from "any party " to the investigation to "the parties " to the investigation.  
    Comment: One commenter argued that CBP should make it clear in  Sec.  165.27(a) that a 
determination must be based on substantial  evidence on the record, and add a reference to the 
administrative  record, as defined in Sec.  165.21.  
    Response: CBP do es not see a need to add a clarification in the  regulation. Section 165.27(a) 
already contains language that a  determination is based on substantial evidence as to whether 
covered  merchandise was entered into the U.S. customs territory through  evasion. In addition, 
Sec.  165.21(a) states that CBP maintains an  administrative record for purposes of making a 
determination as to  evasion under Sec.  165.27. When both regulations are read together, it  is 
clearly stated that CBP's determination as to evasion is ba sed on  substantial evidence on the 
administrative record. In current practice,  CBP states in its affirmative determinations that CBP 
reviewed the  administrative record and found that it contained substantial evidence  of evasion.  
    Comment: One commenter suggested that CBP add a sentence to Sec.  165.27(b) to state that 
CBP will provide parties to the investigation  with a public version of the administrative record no 
later than five  business days after making a determination as t o evasion, the same date  that CBP 
sends the parties to the investigation a summary of the  determination limited to publicly available 
information. This suggested  language would mirror the language in Sec.  165.24(c) for interim  
measures, which includes a n otification of the decision to the parties  of the investigation, along with 
a public version of the administrative  record on the same date.  
    Another commenter suggested that Sec.  165.27(b) be amended to  provide a detailed and 
meaningful public explanat ion as to what should  be covered by the summary of CBP's determination 
as to evasion since  that summary would serve as the primary basis for a party's decision  whether 
to request an administrative review and subsequent judicial  review.  
    Response: With r egard to the first comment, once parties to the  investigation are notified of an 
investigation, and then throughout the  remainder of the investigation, the administrative record is 
made  available in the EAPA Portal. CBP does not agree that the regulation  needs to be amended to 
that effect. Pursuant to Sec.  165.27(b), CBP  will provide a summary of the determination as to 
evasion, limited to  publicly available information, to the parties to the investigation. As  part of the 
public version of the determinatio n as to evasion, CBP  includes a short summary of the redacted G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 17 - 
 
  information in brackets that  was deemed business confidential information. Additionally, as  
discussed in more detail below, CBP will provide for an APO process so  parties to the investigation 
may access business confidential  information. Thus, an amendment to Sec.  165.27(b) as suggested 
by the  second commenter is not necessary.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that Sec.  165.27 does not appear to  contemplate the 
publication of a determination a s to evasion, and a  summary is available only to the parties to the 
investigation. The  commenter suggested that CBP add a new paragraph (c) to Sec.  165.27  stating 
that no later than 90 days after making a determination as to  evasion, CBP would publish a s ummary 
of the determination limited to  publicly available information in the Customs Bulletin or make the  
determination otherwise available for public inspection.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to amend  Sec.  165.27. In additio n to 
informing the parties to the investigation  about the determination electronically, CBP has been 
publishing a  public version of the determination on its website. The public version  of a determination 
is also available to the parties to the  investigatio n in the EAPA Portal.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that a party's right to judicial  review, as granted in 
19 U.S.C.  1517(g), is restricted by the  regulations as the regulations limit a party's right to public  
information only, and thereby deprive the party of full knowledge of  the basis for CBP's 
determination. It is the commenter's opinion that  CBP must provide the parties to the investigation 
with some level of  access to proprietary information in order for CBP to give full effect  to the statute.  
    Response: CBP agrees with the commenter's request to provide access  to another party's 
proprietary information. As discussed in more detail  below, CBP will establish an APO process to 
allow for the release of  business confidential information to parties to the investigation.   
Administrative Review of Determinations (Subpart D)  
    Subpart D (Administrative Review of Determinations) specifies the  requirements for requesting 
an administrative review of a determination  as to evasion, discusses the  submission of responses to 
the request for  administrative review, and describes CBP's authority to request  additional 
information from the parties to the investigation. This  subpart also deals with the administrative 
review standard, the ability  to file f or judicial review of the final administrative determination,  and, 
finally, potential penalties and other actions that CBP may  undertake pursuant to any other relevant 
laws. CBP received comments  regarding the publication of final administrative determinat ions, the  
availability of rebuttal information during an administrative review,  and questions on the de novo 
review process for administrative reviews.  
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern with regard to the 30 -business -day deadline 
(Sec.  165.41(d )) for requesting  
 
[[Page 19250]]  
 
an administrative review of a determination as to evasion and asked for  clarification in the 
regulations. The commenter stated that it is  unclear whether "issuance " in the regulation refers to 
the date CBP  signs the initial determination, the date it is sent to the parties,  the date it is received 
by the parties, or some other date.  
    Response: CBP appreciates the opportunity to clarify that the date  of issuance is  the date that 
the determination is signed by CBP and  also electronically transmitted to the parties to the 
investigation. In  a rare case where the determination as to evasion is signed on one day  and 
electronically transmitted the next business day, the d ate of  electronic transmittal is considered the 
date of issuance.  
    Comment: One commenter asked for the regulations to be amended to  expressly allow for 
rebuttal information in administrative reviews.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter. Unde r Sec.  165.44, CBP  may request additional 
written information from the parties to the  investigation at any time during the administrative review 
process;  however, these requests are narrowly tailored for specific information  related to a record 
that has a lready been created during the course of  the investigation. CBP has a strict 
60-business -day review period to  issue a determination on the request for administrative review. 
See 19  U.S.C. 1517(f) and 19 CFR 165.41(i). Any rebuttal information from the  parties on additional 
information requested by CBP would reduce the  number of days that Regulations and Rulings (RR) 
has available to  conduct a de novo review of the record information and issue a final  administrative 
determination. However, should CBP determine that  rebuttal information is useful, then Sec.  165.44 
permits CBP to  request such information.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that the language in Sec.  165.45 is  contradictory because the 
administrative review process is described to  be de n ovo and, at the same time, based on specific 
facts and  circumstances already on the administrative record. It is the  commenter's opinion that G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 18 - 
 
  parties should be able to provide any  information they deem appropriate in the administrative review 
process  since it is a de novo review.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's request. EAPA requires  that an administrative 
review be rendered within 60 business days (19  U.S.C. 1517(f)), which is in contrast to a much 
longer time frame (up  to 360 calendar day s) that CBP has available to render a determination  as to 
evasion. The short deadline for the administrative review makes  it impracticable for CBP to accept 
additional information that parties  wish to submit. Rather, the administrative review must be based  
solely  on the facts already on the record, with the exception being if CBP  believes that it needs 
additional information in accordance with Sec.  165.44 to be able to render its decision, as mentioned 
above. To  clarify even further, CBP added the phrase "in response to a request  by CBP " before 
"pursuant to Sec.  165.44 " to emphasize that CBP will  only consider additional information if CBP 
specifically requested that  information.  
    Comment: One commenter asked CBP to add a paragraph in Sec.  165.46  that s ets forth that 
final administrative determinations are published  in the Customs Bulletin or are otherwise made 
available for public  inspection no later than 90 days after the issuance of the final  administrative 
determination.  
    Response: CBP disagrees w ith the commenter's suggestion to amend  the regulation as there is 
no need to include in the regulatory text a  requirement for the publication of the final administrative  
determination. As mentioned in more detail above, CBP has started  publishing final ad ministrative 
determinations, limited to public  information, on its website.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that CBP should clarify that any  actions taken apart from the 
EAPA investigation will not disadvantage  False Claims Act (FCA) relators. The commen ter stated that 
Sec.  165.47  expressly states that no action taken under EAPA prevents CBP from  assessing penalties 
of any sort related to such cases or taking action  under any other relevant laws and that CBP should 
extend this  recognition to claims broug ht under the FCA in the final regulations.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's request for  clarification of Sec.  165.47. EAPA 
investigations do not prevent  actions by CBP or other government agencies under other authorities,  
including FCA, an d CBP's and other governmental agencies' rights to  undertake additional 
investigations or enforcement actions in cases  covered by the EAPA provisions are already 
established in Sec.  165.47.  See also 19 U.S.C. 1517(h).  
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that a determination as to  evasion should not be a 
protestable  decision and asked that CBP clarify  in the regulations that the administrative process 
and judicial review  under 19 U.S.C. 1517(f) -(g) are the only avenu es by which a party may  challenge 
a determination.  
    Response: CBP agrees with the commenters that a determination as to  evasion in an EAPA 
investigation is not a protestable decision.  Sections 1517(f) -(g) of 19 U.S.C. establish both an 
administrative an d judicial review process for EAPA determinations made by CBP. The  administrative 
and judicial review processes are the exclusive means by  which EAPA determinations can be 
reviewed. However, CBP does not see a  need to clarify this in the final regulations at this time.  
Other Comments  
    Comment: Multiple commenters asked that CBP publicly disclose key  events, such as the initiation 
of an investigation, or determination as  to evasion, to a wider trade community, either in form of a 
searchable  docket or some  other type of publication process for the key documents.  The commenters 
argued that such disclosure would deter future evasion  attempts and promote increased compliance 
by all parties.  
    Response: CBP already publishes public versions of notices of  initiation of an investigation, notices 
of initiation of an  investigation along with interim measures (if CBP takes interim  measures after 
initiating an investigation), covered merchandise  referrals, determinations as to evasion, and now 
final administrative  determinations as well, on its website. To further promote transparency  of the 
EAPA process, those decisions are viewable in the EAPA Portal by  the parties to the investigation.  
    Comment: Multiple commenters have urged CBP to create an APO  process or sim ilar process in 
the final regulations, which would allow  authorized representatives of interested parties to obtain 
and review  confidential information submitted by other interested parties. While  the commenters 
acknowledge that the statute did not explici tly authorize CBP to create an APO, these commenters 
note that such  specific statutory authorization is not necessary given that Congress  has broadly 
authorized CBP to promulgate regulations necessary to  implement the provisions of TFTEA. The 
commenters cl aim that the lack  of an APO hinders the parties' ability to meaningfully participate in  
EAPA proceedings in multiple ways. The commenters argue that the  parties affected by CBP's 
decision -making will not have full access to  information contained on the adm inistrative record 
unless and until  judicial review is requested. Further, the inability to have access to  other parties' 
business confidential information prevents other parties  to the investigation from providing rebuttal 
information and from  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 19 - 
 
   
[[Page 192 51]] 
 
submitting arguments at the administrative level based on a review of  the complete information. 
Finally, the commenters argue that the lack  of an APO makes the administrative process more 
burdensome for CBP,  because CBP must respond to irrelevant arg uments and evidence submitted  
by parties, who, without full access to the record, are unable to  assess the nature of that record and 
other parties' claims.  
    Response: CBP agrees with the commenters that Congress provided CBP  with authority to 
"prescribe  such regulations as may be necessary " to implement the requirements under the statute. 
CBP, by regulation, has  created an investigation procedure that allows participation by the  parties 
to the investigation. Under Sec.  165.4, any party submitting  information to CBP may request 
confidential treatment for information  protectable under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). The party must identify 
such confidential information by placing it in brackets, marking the first  page as confidential, and 
providing an  explanation for requesting  confidential treatment. The interested party must also file a 
public  version of the confidential document. Under Sec.  165.4(a)(2), the  public version must contain 
a summary of the confidential information  with sufficient detail  to permit a reasonable understanding 
of the  substance of the information. If the submitting interested party claims  that summarization is 
not possible, the claim must be accompanied by a  full explanation of the reasons supporting that 
claim. Public summar ies that do not meet this requirement will be rejected.  
    Moreover, in order to allow meaningful participation in the  proceedings, and for purposes of 
transparency, CBP will not accept  claims of confidential treatment for the following information: 
(1) name of the party to the investigation providing the information, its  agent filing on its behalf, if 
any, and email address for communication  and service purposes; (2) basis upon which the party 
making the  allegation qualifies as an interested party as defi ned in Sec.  165.1;  (3) name and 
address of importer against whom the allegation is  brought; (4) description of covered merchandise; 
and (5) applicable AD/CVD orders.  
    While CBP believes that the above process provides parties to the  investigation with a meaningful 
opportunity to participate in the EAPA  investigation, CBP acknowledges that, on July 27, 2023, the 
U.S. Court  of Appeals issued a decision in Royal Brush Mfg. v. United States, 75  F.4th 1250 
(Fed. Cir. 2023), with respect to the issue of a nee d for an  administrative protective order in that 
case. In light of that  precedential decision, CBP is reviewing its procedures with respect to  the 
disclosure of business confidential information during EAPA  investigations. As such, CBP has 
amended Sec.  16 5.4 and added language  in the introductory text of paragraph (a) to state that if 
the requirements of Sec.  165.4 are satisfied and the information is  privileged or confidential in 
accordance 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), CBP will  grant business confidential treatme nt and issue an APO, in 
compliance  with the mandate in Royal Brush. Further, CBP added a new paragraph  (f), stating that 
in each investigation where CBP grants a request for  business confidential treatment, CBP will issue 
an APO which will  contain terms th at allow the representatives of the parties to the  investigation to 
access the business confidential information. CBP will  publish guidance to provide additional 
information on this new APO  process, and CBP is also considering whether to initiate a separat e 
rulemaking for purposes of further codifying an APO process. Finally,  CBP made several additional 
changes to Sec.  165.4, unrelated to an APO  process, which may be found in section III below.  
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that CBP must follow the  statutorily mandated deadlines 
and should clarify in the final  regulations that they are mandatory.  
    Response: CBP abides by all statutory deadlines such as CBP's  decision to take interim measures 
no later than 90 days after  initiating an investigation under 19 U.S.C. 1517(e), CBP's  determination 
as to evasion no later than 300 days after initiating an  investigation pursuant to 
section  1517 (c)(1)(A), and the 60 -business -day timeline for ma king a final administrative 
determination pursuant  to section 1517(f)(2). CBP does not believe that a clarification in the  final 
regulations is necessary.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that CBP should clarify in the final  regulations that all ex parte 
communications of substance will be  memorialized in the administrative record and public versions 
of such  written memorialization should be promptly disclosed to the other  parties to the proceeding.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter that the m emorialization  of ex parte 
communications needs to be specifically outlined in the  regulations. Substantive ex parte 
communications are memorialized, and  public versions are disclosed to the parties to the 
investigation as a  matter of practice.  
    Comment : One commenter voiced concerns with regard to section  411(b)(4)(B) of TFTEA, 
specifically the provision of information on the  status of CBP's consideration of an evasion allegation 
and related  decision whether or not to pursue any administrative inquiries  or other  actions as a 
result of an allegation to a party or parties who  submitted an allegation as to evasion. The G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 20 - 
 
  commenter stated that this  provision appears to authorize CBP to allow the alleging party to  request 
Federal documents, which will likely in clude business  confidential information of the importer. The 
commenter further argued  that this provision disadvantages the importer by giving the alleging  party 
information that the importer cannot review and of which the  importer is not aware, making thi s 
provision fundamentally unfair.  
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter, who is not interpreting  the statute in the way that 
CBP is administering EAPA. While the  alleging party may be aware that CBP is processing an 
allegation before  the alleged e vader is, CBP does not share business confidential  information of other 
entities with the alleging party at any stage of  the investigation. All parties to the investigation are 
notified  whether or not interim measures are taken once an investigation is  ongoing and are allowed 
to participate in the investigation from that  point forward.  
    Comment: One commenter stated that CBP should prescribe regulations  that obligate customs 
brokers to collect and verify meaningful  information regarding companies that approach the broker 
seeking to act  as an importer of record.  
    Response: CBP thanks the commenter for its contribution; however,  this comment is beyond the 
scope of this EAPA rulemaking.  
III. Technical Changes and Clarifications to the Int erim Regulations  
    In addition to carefully considering and responding to the public  comments, CBP has reviewed 
the interim regulations in their totality to  assess the effectiveness of the established EAPA process 
and determine  whether any regulations, other than the ones addressed above in  response to public 
comments, should be amended. Pursuant to this  review, CBP has made some changes to clarify and 
update the interim  regulations, emphasizing CBP's goal for a clear and transparent process  and 
aligning CBP's current practice with the regulations.  
    CBP made some changes to Sec.  165.1 by clarifying and updating  some of the existing definitions 
and adding a definition. First, CBP  slightly rearranged the sentence of the definition of  
 
[[Pag e 19252]]  
 
"allegation " in Sec.  165.1 for clarity. Next, in the definition of  "TRLED " in Sec.  165.1, CBP removed 
the reference to EAPA and  replaced it with a reference to the Trade Facilitation and Trade  
Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA) as it is a more ac curate reference. CBP  also added a definition for 
"Business day " in Sec.  165.1, which  mirrors the language in 19 CFR 101.1. CBP had received a 
general  comment regarding the treatment of Inauguration Day (January 20 or  January 21 if 
January  20 falls on a S unday) in the context of  calculating deadlines, and CBP wants to take the 
opportunity to clarify  its position on this subject since this legal holiday in the  Washington, DC, area 
occurs every four years. Thus, pursuant to the new  definition, and in accorda nce with 
5 U.S.C.  6103(c), Inauguration Day  is not considered a business day for purposes of an EAPA 
investigation.  
    CBP made several changes to Sec.  165.4, in addition to the changes  mentioned above. In 
paragraph (a), CBP added a sentence at the end o f the paragraph to state that all documents and 
communications that are  submitted to CBP after notice of initiation must be served on all  parties to 
the investigation by the submitting entity. For business  confidential documents, a public version 
must be s erved as well, in  accordance with Sec.  165.4(a)(2). This addition is not a change but  
merely a confirmation of CBP's practice. Further, CBP included language  in the introductory sentence 
in paragraph (b) clarifying that rejected  submissions due to failure  to meet the requirements of 
Sec.  165.4(a)  will not be placed on the administrative record. The same language  regarding the 
placement on the administrative record was added in Sec.  165.4(b)(3), setting forth the effects of 
a rejected submission.  Finally, CBP added the phrase "unless the submitting interested party  takes 
any of the actions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section within the  timeframe specified in that 
paragraph " at the end of the introductory  sentence in paragraph (b), referring to the possibility of 
corrective  action pursuant to Sec.  165.4(b)(2) in case of a nonconforming  submission.  
    In addition, CBP added two sentences at the end of paragraph (e),  stating that parties who are 
not already subject to the requirements of  Sec.  165.4,  such as suppliers or customers, must adhere 
to the  requirements set forth in Sec.  165.4 and Sec.  165.5 when filing  submissions. With this 
change, CBP is clarifying its current  expectation that interested parties and other parties who submit  
information to CBP must follow the same submission requirements.  Additionally, Sec.  165.5(b) 
states that all submissions to CBP must  adhere to the requirements in part 165. Thus, the addition 
of the two  sentences in paragraph (e) simply clarifies the requirements set  forth in Sec.  165.4 and 
Sec.  165.5 and the effect of a nonconforming  submission. \4\ G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 21 - 
 
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    \4\ CBP added Sec.  165.5(b)(4) in this final rule and  the addition is explained in further detail 
below.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    In Sec.  165.5(b)(2), CBP added language to clarify that the  certification requirement, a long with 
other submission requirements in  sections 165.4 and 165.5, applies not only to submissions by 
interested  parties, but also to submissions requested by CBP from any other party.  Lastly, CBP 
replaced the reference to "19 CFR " with a section symbol  in two places in Sec.  165.5(b)(2)(ii) 
and (iii) to make those  references consistent with other references in the regulations.  
    In addition, CBP added a new paragraph Sec.  165.5(b)(4), titled  "Nonconforming submissions, " 
clarifying that CBP will reject  submissions that do not meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of 
this section, and will not consider or place them on the administrative  record. In Sec.  165.5(c)(1), 
CBP added language in the first sentence  to clarify that the request for extensions app lies not only 
to regulatory time limits, but also to any deadlines for the submission of  information requested by 
CBP. CBP has allowed for requests for  extension of non -regulatory deadlines in prior investigations 
and takes  the opportunity to confirm in th e regulation that a party may request  an extension of a 
deadline set by CBP. In addition, CBP added the words  "by the requester " at the end of the third 
sentence of paragraph  (c)(1) in the definition of an extraordinary circumstance, which is an  
unexpected  event that could not have been prevented even if the  requester had taken reasonable 
measures. In paragraph (c)(2), CBP  replaced "retain it in " the administrative record with "place it  
on" the administrative record to make the language consistent with  other sections that have similar 
language.  
    CBP revised the language in the second sentence of Sec.  165.13(c)  by replacing the 
95-calendar -day reference with regulatory language  that refle cts CBP's practice of notifying the 
parties to the  investigation within five business days of making formal a decision to  initiate an 
investigation and a decision to consolidate after day 90 of  the investigation. This change is similar 
to the change in Sec . 165.15(d)(1), as explained above. The changes to both Sec.  165.13(c)  and 
Sec.  165.15(d)(1) will create uniformity among the regulations  dealing with the timing of notification 
of decisions that CBP makes  throughout the EAPA investigation process. CBP f urther reorganized the  
first sentence in Sec.  165.13(d) to read more easily and added a  reference to public documents 
that need to be served on parties to the  previously unconsolidated investigation once the parties 
subject to the  consolidation are notifi ed. Both public versions of documents and  public documents 
are placed on the administrative record as part of the  EAPA investigation. Lastly, CBP replaced the 
second and third mentions  of the word "upon" in the first sentence of Sec.  165.13(d) with  "on" for 
clarity.  
    CBP amended the first sentence of Sec.  165.14(a) to include the  words "but not limited to " after 
"including " to emphasize that any  Federal agency, in addition to Commerce and the ITC, may request 
an investigation under part 165.  
    CBP ad ded a phrase to Sec.  165.16(d) to include interim measures  under Sec.  165.24, along 
with the deadline to decide whether to  initiate an investigation and the deadline to issue a 
determination as  to evasion under Sec.  165.27, setting forth that the time p eriod for  any referral 
to and determination by Commerce will not be counted  toward the deadlines mentioned in this 
paragraph. The regulation is  based on language in 19 U.S.C. 1517(b)(4)(C), which states that the  
period required for the referral to Commerce  and the determination  shall not be counted in 
calculating any deadline under this section,  and interim measures are mentioned in paragraph (e) 
of section 1517 as  well. 
    In Sec. Sec.  165.22(a) and (d), CBP replaced the phrase "not later" with "no later " to be 
consistent with the use of the phrase  in other regulations. This technical change does not change 
the deadlines associated with a determination as to evasion in this section. In paragraph (d), CBP 
changed the word "notification " to "notice " in the paragraph heading to better reflect CBP's practice 
of serving the parties to the investigation with a notice, instead of  simply notifying them of an 
extension of time to  make a determination  as to evasion. Further, CBP rephrased some of the 
language in Sec.  165.22(b) to mirror the language in Sec.  165.13(a), and with this  final rule, both 
sections will include the "date of receipt of the  first properly filed allegation " instead of the "date on 
which CBP  receives the first of such allegations. " 
    In Sec.  165.23(b), CBP changed the words "Any party " to the  investigation at the beginning of 
the sentence to "The parties " to the investigation. This change clarifies CBP's in tent as to who may  
submit additional information and makes the language consistent with  the 
 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 22 - 
 
  [[Page 19253]]  
 
term "parties to the investigation, " as defined in Sec.  165.1. For  ease of reading, CBP reorganized 
165.23(c)(2), breaking it out into  subparagraph (i) dealing with the requirements associated with 
the voluntary submission of factual information and subparagraph (ii)  detailing the requirements for 
the submission of rebuttal information  to the submitted factual information.  
    In the newl y created paragraph (c)(2)(i), CBP added language to  provide CBP with the discretion 
to extend the deadline for voluntary  submission of factual information if CBP determines that 
circumstances  warrant an extension. In many past investigations, CBP was unde r considerable time 
constraints to timely review and assess the  information gathered during the investigation before 
making a  determination as to evasion. In exceptional cases, CBP had already  extended the deadline 
in Sec.  165.23(c)(2). When the interim  regulations were drafted, the timelines stated therein 
seemed feasible;  however, CBP's experience over the past seven years has shown that  there are 
situations where CBP needs additional time to investigate  and, therefore, needs to have the 
discretion to e xtend the deadline for  the voluntary submission of factual information when the 
circumstances  warrant. There may be situations where verifications are difficult to  conduct due to  
travel restrictions or other obstacles, and CBP needs  the flexibility to exte nd the deadline for the 
voluntary submission of  factual information in order to conduct a fulsome investigation. If CBP  
extends the deadline in Sec.  165.23(c)(2)(i), the parties to the  investigation will be notified of the 
extension and will be given the  opportunity to make submissions up to the end of the extended 
deadline.  To make the remaining language in Sec.  165.23 consistent with this  change, CBP revised 
the last sentence of (c)(1) by removing the  reference to the 200 -day deadline and replacing it w ith 
a reference to  (c)(2), which sets forth the deadline, including the possibility for  CBP to extend the 
deadline at its discretion. It is important to note  that this discretionary extension of the deadline in 
Sec. 165.23(c)(2)(i) does not go beyond the s tatutory limit of 360 days (19  U.S.C. 1517(c)(1)) by 
which CBP is required to make a determination as  to evasion.  
    In addition, in newly created Sec.  165.23(c)(2)(i), CBP replaced  the clause "except rebuttal 
information as permitted pursuant to the  next sentence herein " with a reference to (c)(2)(ii), 
pointing to the  time frame and requirements for the submission of rebuttal information.  Lastly, in 
the newly created paragraph (c)(2)(ii), CBP removed the  phrase "from the date of service of any 
factual in formation, " keeping  only the phrase "from the date of placement of any new factual  
information " because CBP's practice has been to use the date of  placement of new factual information 
on the administrative record as  the trigger for the 10 -calendar -day peri od for providing rebuttal  
information. Removing this phrase does not change the parties' rights  to provide rebuttal information 
and the time frame for submitting  rebuttal information.  
    In Sec.  165.23(d), CBP included language in the second sentence to  clarify that CBP intends to 
place a written summary of an oral  discussion between CBP and any party from whom CBP requests 
factual  information on the administrative record once an investigation has been  initiated, consistent 
with CBP's practice. It is impo rtant to note that  oral discussions between the alleger and CBP 
regarding flaws in an  allegation will not be placed on the administrative record. In  addition, CBP 
switched the order of the words "confidential " and "business " in the third sentence of paragr aph (d) 
as the proper term  is "business confidential information " and it was erroneously written  in the interim 
regulations as "confidential business information. " 
    In Sec.  165.24, CBP replaced the word "notification " in the  first sentence of paragraph  (c) with  
"notice " as CBP serves an actual  notice of the decision to take interim measures. In addition, CBP  
amended the last sentence of paragraph (c) stating that CBP will  provide the public version of the 
administrative record within 10  business days of  issuing a notice of initiation of an investigation.  
When the interim regulations were drafted, it seemed operationally  feasible to provide the public 
version of the administrative record and  the notice of initiation of investigation and interim measures 
on the  same date. However, due to TRLED's heavy workload, it has proven  difficult in many cases 
to provide the entire administrative record,  limited to public information, after day 90 of the 
investigation, on  the same day as the notice of initiation of inv estigation and interim  measures, as 
CBP needs time to prepare the public versions of documents  on the administrative record before 
providing them to the parties to  the investigation.  
    CBP made changes to Sec.  165.26(a)(1) and (b)(1) that are similar  to the changes discussed 
above for Sec.  165.23(c), providing CBP the  discretion to extend the deadlines for submitting written 
arguments and  responses to written arguments if the circumstances warrant. The need  to extend a 
deadline under Sec.  165.26(a) has frequently become  apparent, usually due to the verification 
process not being completed  in time. The purpose of such an extension is to grant an additional 
60 days in those instances to complete the verification, give parties  adequate time to  present written 
arguments, and for CBP to make a  determination as to evasion. In addition, CBP reorganized 
paragraph  (a)(1) and included language stating that an extension of the 230 -calendar -day deadline G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 23 - 
 
  cannot exceed 300 calendar days after the  investig ation was initiated, or 360 calendar days after 
the investigation was initiated (in case of an extension of the deadline  for a determination as to 
evasion pursuant to Sec.  165.22(c)). This  change will provide CBP the additional time needed to 
make a sound  decision if circumstances warrant an extension. CBP also reorganized  paragraph (b)(1) 
to include language regarding CBP's discretion to  extend the 15 -calendar -day deadline if CBP deems 
it necessary. Further,  CBP slightly revised Sec.  165.26(d)(2) to make  the language read more  easily 
without changing the substance or meaning of the language.  
    In Sec.  165.28(c), CBP added the phrase "in accordance with the  instructions received from the 
Department of Commerce " at the end of  the sentence in order to ali gn the regulatory language with 
the statutory language in 19 U.S.C. 1517(d)(1)(D) and provide further  clarity.  
    In order to bring the EAPA regulations in line with the statutory  language in 19 U.S.C. 1517(c), 
CBP removed the word "initial " before  the wo rd "determination " throughout Sec. Sec.  165.41, 
165.45 and  165.46. CBP added "as to evasion " after "determination " in the  heading of subpart D, 
as well as in the section heading for Sec.  165.41 to distinguish a determination as to evasion from 
a determina tion that is made during the administrative review. In  addition, CBP has removed the 
last sentence of Sec.  165.41(i) as it is  redundant and potentially confusing. The 30 -business -day 
deadline for  filing a request for an administrative review is set forth in Sec.  165.41(d).  
    CBP made three changes in the introductory paragraph of Sec.  165.41(f). First, at the end of the 
first sentence, CBP added the  phrase "in total (including exhibits but not table of contents or  table 
of authorities), " which can also b e found in Sec.  165.42, in  order to make the page limit 
requirements for a request for  administrative review  
 
[[Page 19254]]  
 
consistent with the requirements for a response to a request for  administrative review. Second, CBP 
replaced the word "upon" with "on for clarity. And third, CBP added a sentence to clarify that CBP 
will reject a request for administrative review that does not meet the  requirements of paragraph (f) 
and will not consider  it or place it on  the administrative record. Further, in Sec.  165.41(h), CBP 
removed the  language "involving the same importer and merchandise " as this is not  a correct 
statement as to the consolidation of requests for  administrative review. There is no limitation in 
practice as to the  possibility of consolidating separate requests for administrative  review that relate 
to one consolidated investigation, which may include  different importers and merchandise.  
    In addition, CBP added a sentence in Sec.  1 65.42 to clarify that  the original submitter of a request 
for administrative review is not  included as one of the parties who may submit a written response 
to the  filed request for review. It has never been CBP's intent that a party  who submitted a request  
for administrative review be able to respond to  its own submission, and CBP wants to confirm this 
intent in the final  regulation. CBP also replaced the word "upon" with "on" in Sec.  165.42 for clarity.  
    CBP amended Sec.  165.44 by adding two sentences at the end of the  section to clarify that CBP 
will only accept written submissions of  additional information in response to a request by CBP, and 
that meetings or any other methods of unsolicited submission of additional  information during the 
administrati ve review are not permitted.  Throughout subpart D, only written submissions and 
additional written  information, and no other methods, such as oral discussions as allowed  in 
subpart  C, will be accepted. See Sec. Sec.  165.41(f), 165.42, and  165.44.  
    Lastly, CBP made two minor changes in Sec.  165.46. In paragraph  (a), CBP replaced the 
reference to "EAPA" with a reference to  "TFTEA " as it is more accurate. In addition, CBP replaced 
the term  "final administrative determination " in Sec.  165.46(b) with  "administrative review " to 
mirror the statutory language used in 19  U.S.C. 1517(f).  
IV. Conclusion  
    Based on the analysis of the comments and further consideration,  CBP has decided to adopt as 
final the interim regulations published in  the Federal Regist er on August 22, 2016, as modified by 
the changes  based  on public comments, and the technical changes and clarifications  discussed 
above.  
V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements  
A. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866  
    Executive Orders 13563 (Improving Reg ulation and Regulatory Review)  and 12866 (Regulatory 
Planning and Review), as amended by Exe cutive  Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), 
direct agencies to assess  the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and if  regulation G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 24 - 
 
  is nece ssary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize  net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public  health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). 
Executive  Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs a nd benefits, reducing 
costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.  
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this  rule a significant regulatory 
action under section 3(f) of Executive  Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order  14094. 
Accordingly, OMB has  not reviewed it.  
    This rule has resulted in undiscounted costs to the public of  $20,008,985 to file allegations and 
communicate to CBP during the EAPA  investigation process and to file administrative review requests 
since the IFR was published in 2016. The rule has resulted in $20,542,915 in  costs to CBP. Qualitative 
benefits of this rule include improved  enforcement of AD/CVD orders, increased transparency and 
predictability  in the processing of AD/CVD evasion allegations, a nd increased  communication with 
the public.  
1. Purpose of the Rule  
    As mentioned above, on February 24, 2016, President Obama signed  into law the Trade 
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015,  which contains Title IV -Prevention of Evasion of 
Antidumping and  Countervailing Duty Orders (short title "Enforce and Protect Act of  2015" or "EAPA") 
(Pub. L. 114 -125, 130 Stat. 122, 155, (Feb. 24,  2016) (19 U.S.C. 4301 note)). Section 421 of TFTEA 
requires that  regulations be promulgated where necessary to implement the provisions  of EAPA. 
Previous customs laws did not establish a set of specific  formal procedures for parties to submit 
allegations of antidumping or  countervailing duty (AD/CVD) evasion to CBP. EAPA provides CBP with 
new and addit ional tools with which to combat the problem of AD/CVD evasion  with the 
establishment of a formal process for investigating  allegations of the evasion of AD/CVD orders. On 
August 22, 2016, CBP  published an interim final rule (IFR) in the Federal Register ( 81 FR  56477), 
which established a transparent process for making allegations,  investigating such allegations, and 
reporting the results of  investigations. This process provides access to information for the  parties to 
the investigation, giving CBP the oppo rtunity to conduct  improved and more thorough investigations 
of each allegation and to  make informed AD/CVD evasion decisions. This final rule makes permanent  
the interim regulations, including a change based on the previously  published technical correctio n, 
changes in light of the public comments  received in the comment period, as well as changes based 
on CBP's own  review of the interim regulations and the established investigation  process.  
    AD/CVD duties are an important trade measure that shields dome stic companies from unfair trade 
practices by overseas competitors. In  fiscal years 2020 and 2021, CBP assessed approximately 
$1.8 billion \5\ and $2.4 billion \6\ in antidumping and countervailing duties,  respectively. With so 
much money at stake, the inc entives to circumvent  AD/CVD orders imposing these duties are high. 
The public benefits from  having a more formalized and clear AD/CVD evasion allegation process,  
and such a process gives CBP the information it needs to be more  effective with AD/CVD 
enforc ement. Furthermore, this rule fulfills the  legal mandate set forth in EAPA to establish a formal 
AD/CVD evasion  allegations process and an investigation program.  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------  
    \5\ Source: CBP. CBP Trade and Travel Report. Available at  
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/ 2021-Feb/CBP -FY2020 -Trade -and-
Travel -Report.pdf . Accessed June 15, 2022.  
    \6\ Source: CBP. CBP Trade and Travel Report. Available at  
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2022 -
Apr/FINAL%20FY202 1_%20Trade%20and%20Travel%20Report%20%28508%20Compliant%29%
20%28April%202022%29_0.pdf . Accessed June 15, 2022.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 
Background  
    The antidumping (AD) law provides relief to domestic industries  that have been materially injured 
or are threatened with material  injury by imported merchandise sold in the U.S. market at prices 
below  fair market value. The countervailing duty (CVD) law provides relief to  domestic industries 
that have been materially injured or are threatened  with material injury by imported merchandise 
sold in the U.S. market  that has been unfairly subsidized by a foreign government or  
 
[[Page 19255]]  
 
public entity. AD/CVD laws provide for additional import duties to be  placed on the dumped or 
subsidized imports to offset the unfair dumping  or subsidization of those imports.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 25 - 
 
      Before the promulgation of interim final regulations, there was not  a formal p rocedure for 
interested parties and other Federal agencies to  submit allegations and evidence of AD/CVD evasion 
to CBP or a  requirement for CBP to undertake a formal investigation in response to  allegations of 
evasion. If an entity wanted to file an AD/CVD  grievance  against another business it would have had 
to submit a grievance via  CBP's Trade Violation Reporting (TVR) system for general e -Allegations  or 
contact CBP by other means, and a CBP employee would assist it in  submitting its allegation. After 
the alleger provided all the required  information, CBP would examine the information and determine 
whether to  initiate an informal inquiry. There was not a formal process in place  for CBP to reach out 
to the entity initiating the allegation to inform  it of th e results of its grievance and in many cases 
the alleger never  heard back from CBP after the allegation was made. There was also no  mechanism 
for the accused entity to know that it was under an e -Allegation investigation nor opportunity for it 
to provide i nformation  in its defense unless CBP decided to open a formal investigation. AD/CVD 
grievances submitted via the "Report Trade Violation " option on  the TVR website are commonly 
referred to as "e-Allegations. " 
Costs  
    EAPA provides CBP with a formal process for conducting  administrative investigations involving 
possible evasion of AD/CVD  orders. CBP has established a new process under EAPA whereby CBP 
can formally reach out to the alleger, the alleged evader, and other  interested parties with separate  
and distinct questionnaires in order  to acquire information that will be used to determine whether 
an investigation is warranted and whether evasion is occurring or has  occurred.  
    Parties submitting EAPA allegations do so through the EAPA Portal,  which  was launched in 
April 2021. New users are prompted to create an  account and provide their name and email address 
in the account  creation process. The creation of an account and submission of an  allegation via the  
EAPA Portal are estimated to take three mi nutes  (0.05 hours) and 12 minutes (0.20 hours) 
respectively, for a total time  burden of 15 minutes (0.25 hours) for a first EAPA allegation by a  user. 
Information provided during account creation is automatically  inserted into documents submitted to 
CBP th rough the EAPA Portal and  reduces the time burden to submit an EAPA allegation by 
three  minutes  when compared to the time burden prior to the introduction of the EAPA  Portal. Users 
would also save the three minutes related to account  creation for each alle gation submitted after 
the first when compared to  the previous method of having to submit the information again directly  
into the EAPA Portal. Prior to the launching of the EAPA Portal (and  its EAPA -dedicated predecessor), 
EAPA allegations were submitted v ia a dedicated link on CBP's TVR system to a document for the 
alleger to  complete and documents submitted as part of the investigation were sent  via email. The 
time it takes to enroll in the EAPA Portal is equal to  the time saved the first time the EAPA Portal is 
used. For repeat  users, there will be a three -minute time savings, but CBP lacks data to  estimate 
how often this takes place. To the extent the EAPA Portal is  used more than once by individual users, 
there will be a three -minute  savings per use. For the purpose of this analysis, CBP assumes the 
EAPA Portal has no impact on time burdens.  
    CBP estimates that the submission of an EAPA allegation takes  approximately 15 minutes 
(0.25  hours). \7\ The statute requires a CBP  employee to advise and provide technical assistance to 
the alleger in  the filing of the EAPA allegation. In practice, this has eliminated the  necessity of a 
follow -up questionnaire to be filled out by the alleger.  
----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------  
    \7\ Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Supporting  Statement for Paperwork Reduction  
Act Submission: 1651 -0131, e -Allegations Submission. September 24, 2020. Available at 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202009 -1651-006. 
Accessed November 24, 2020.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    The alleged evader may receive a CBP Form 28 (CF -28) (Request for  Information) or an Initial 
Request for Information questionnaire and  other interested parties may receive an Initial Request 
for Information  questionnaire. Responding to CBP's request for information via these  instruments is 
optional; however, any party, except, e.g., a foreign  government, customer, or supplier, that 
chooses not to respond could be  subject to adverse inferences and the investigation may lead to an  
unfavorable outcome for that party. The expected time burdens to  complete and submit a response 
to the CF -28 and Initial Request for  Information are approximately 60 and  90 hours, respectively. \8\ 
If CBP  determines that more information is required to bring an EAPA case to a  close, relevant parties 
will receive a Supplemental Request for  Information questionnaire. A Supplemental Request for 
Information  questionnaire is typically issued because a party did not fully answer  questions in the 
CF-28 or Initial Request for Information  questionnaire. The Supplemental Request for Information 
questionnaire  is estimated to have a time burden of 60 hours to complet e and  submit. \9\ G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 26 - 
 
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    \8\ Source: Email correspondence with CBP's Enforcement  Operations Division on May 20, 2021.  
    \9\ Source: Email correspon dence with CBP's Enforcement  Operations Division on May 20, 2021.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    To estimate the cost to the industry from filing an EAPA allegation  and res ponding to the 
subsequent forms, CBP must first determine a  value of time for entities who would complete and file 
the forms. CBP  expects that, in most cases, these documents will be completed and  filed by an 
outside attorney due to the complex and special ized nature  of international trade law. CBP estimated 
the cost to companies to hire  an outside attorney to be $400 per hour in 2016 \10\ and adjusted 
the wage to $466.38 in 2022 dollars. \11\ Each document's time burden is  then multiplied by the 
hourly cost  to hire an outside attorney to  determine a total cost for each form. As shown in Table 1, 
the cost to  file a single EAPA allegation is monetized by multiplying the time  burden (.25 hours) and 
the hourly attorney costs ($466.38 in 2022  dollars) which resul ts in a cost of $116.60 per filing. The 
estimated  cost to the industry for filing each document is shown in Table 1 along  with their 
corresponding time burdens.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------  
    \10\ Source: American Intellectual Property Law Association.  2017 Report of the Economic 
Survey. "Billable Hours, Billing Rate,  Dollars Billed (Q29, Q30, Q27). " June 2017.  
    \11\ CBP calculated the 2021 adjusted dollar amount using th e percent increase in the Annual 
Average GDP Price Deflator (2012=100)  between 2016 and 2021. The annual average GDP Price 
Deflator value  in 2016 = 105.74, the annual average GDP Price Deflator value in  2021 = 118.37, 
the percent increase was estimated to be around  11.19444% (118.37/105.74 = 1.119444 or 
11.19444%). This percent  increase was applied to the 2016 estimated hourly billing rate of  $400 for 
external attorneys to estimate the 2021 hourly billing rate  of $447.78 for external attorneys. CBP 
assumes an annual growth rate  of 4.15% based on the prior year's change in the implicit price  
deflator, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, to arrive at  the 2022 figure.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------  
    This rule formalized the written argument process with the  implementation of timelines for 
submittal. There is no additional cost  to the public as a result of the new formal written argument 
process as  the public already had the ability to submit written  
 
[[Page 19256]]  
 
arguments to CBP, though not as part of a formal process.  
    This rule also established a process by which either the alleger or  the alleged evader may request 
an administrative review of a  determination as t o evasion. The interested party has 30 business 
days after the determination to request an administrative review. CBP  estimates an administrative 
review request takes 50 hours to complete  and submit.  
Table 1 --Time Burdens for Documents Submitted to CBP  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Document submitted  Time burden  
(in hours)  Cost per submission  
(in 2022 dollars)  
e-Allegations....................  0.25 $116.60  
EAPA allegation..................  0.25 116.60  
CF-28 Response...................  60 27,982.80  
Initial Request for Information 
Response........................  90 41,974.20  
Supplemental Request for Information 
Response............  60 27,982.80  
Administrative Review Request....  50 23,319.00  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    The total cost of this rule to the industry is fully monetized by  multiplying the cost per submission 
from Table 1 and the number of  submissi ons in Table 2 and then summing the results for each year. G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 27 - 
 
  The product of the cost per submission and the submissions by fiscal year  are shown in Table 3, as 
well as the summing of each year's  undiscounted costs.  
Table 2 --Submissions by Fiscal Year  
------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Document submitted  2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 
e-Allegations (AD/CVD) *..........  115 76 106 91 106 147 
EAPA allegations..................  2 29 57 127 149 127 
CF-28 Response....................  1 17 19 54 46 47 
Initial Request for Information 
Response.........................  2 27 18 66 42 98 
Supplemental Request for Information 
Response.............  0 13 18 26 13 47 
Administrative Review Requests....  0 0 2 2 14 21 
Total Filings Caused by Rule..  5 86 114 275 264 340 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Note: Submissions are sorted by the fiscal year the case was initiated, not by the year the individual 
document  was received.  
* Note: e -Allegatio n (AD/CVD) submissions are not included in Total Filings Caused by Rule.  
Table 3 --Industry Costs Caused by Rule by Fiscal Year  
[In undiscounted 2022 dollars]  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Document submitted  2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 6 Year 
Total 
e-Allegations (AD/CVD) *  
.....................................  $13,408  $8,861  $12,359  $10,610  $12,359  $17,139  $74,737  
EAPA allegations...............  
..............................  233 3,381  6,646  14,808  17,373  14,808  57,248  
CF-28 Response...............  
................................  27,983  475,708  531,673  1,511,071  1,287,209  1,315,192  5,148,835  
Initial Request for 
Information 
Response.....................  83,948  1,133,303  755,536  2,770,297  1,762,916  4,113,472  10,619,473  
Supplemental Request for 
Information 
Response................  0 363,776  503,690  727,553  363,776  1,315,192  3,273,988  
Administrative Review 
Requests.........................
...... 0 0 46,638  46,638  326,466  489,699  909,441  
Total Industry Costs 
Caused by 
Rule......................  112,164  1,976,169  1,844,183  5,070,367  3,757,740  7,248,361  20,008,985  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Note: Submissions are sorted by the fiscal year the case was initiated, not by the year the individual 
document was received.  
* Note: e -Allegatio n (AD/CVD) submissions are not included in Total Industry Costs Caused by Rule.  
    CBP incurs costs throughout the EAPA investigative process and  created two new branches to 
handle the new filings and resulting  investigations. These two new branches are s taffed with a total 
of 15 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. The average CBP Trade and Revenue  fully-loaded salary 
in fiscal year 2022 was $228,254.61. \12\ This rule  created 15 full -time equivalent positions and 
multiplying this by the  FY 2022 wage rate  results in $3,423,819 in undiscounted costs annually  
since 2016. As shown in Table 5, the total costs to CBP for the fiscal  years 2016 -2021 were 
$22,811,066 and $26,205,984 discounted at three  and seven percent, respectively.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 28 - 
 
  ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    \12\ CBP bases this wage on the FY 2022 salary, benefits,  premium pay, non -salary costs, and 
awards of the national average of  CBP Trade and Revenue positions, which is e qual to a GS -12, 
Step 10. Source: Email correspondence with CBP's Office of Finance on June  27, 2022.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    In summary, this rule resulted in a cost to the public of  $18,337,822 to file EAPA allegations and 
respond to the questionnaires,  under the EAPA investigation process since the EAPA IFR was 
published  in 2016. In addition, CBP estimates that it cost the  public $873,171 to  file administrative 
review requests. In total, this rule has resulted  in an undiscounted cost to the public of $19,210,993 
and $20,542,915 to  CBP. 
 
[[Page 19257]]  
 
Table 4 --Total Cost  
[In undiscounted 2022 U.S. dollars]  
---------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Fiscal year  Industry  CBP Total 
2016............................................................  $112,164  $3,423,819  $3,535,984  
2017............................................................  1,976,169  3,423,819  5,399,988  
2018............................................................  1,844,183  3,423,819  5,268,002  
2019............................................................  5,070,367  3,423,819  8,494,186  
2020............................................................  3,757,740  3,423,819  7,181,559  
2021............................................................  7,248,361  3,423,819  10,672,181  
Total.......................................................  20,008,985  20,542,915  40,551,900  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Table 5 --Monetized Present Value and Annualized Costs by Fiscal Year  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------  
 Industry  CBP Total 
Fiscal year  3% Discount 
rate 7% Discount 
rate 3% Discount 
rate 7% Discount 
rate 3% Discount 
rate 7% Discount 
rate 
2016.................
....... $133,930  $168,329  $4,088,219  $5,138,229  $4,222,149  $5,306,558  
2017.................
....... 2,290,921  2,771,679  3,969,145  4,802,084  6,260,066  7,573,762  
2018.................
....... 2,075,644  2,417,348  3,853,539  4,487,929  5,929,183  6,905,276  
2019.................
....... 5,540,527  6,211,417  3,741,300  4,194,326  9,281,826  10,405,743  
2020.................
....... 3,986,587  4,302,237  3,632,330  3,919,931  7,618,916  8,222,167  
2021.................
....... 7,465,812  7,755,747  3,526,534  3,663,487  10,992,346  11,419,233  
Total.................
.. 21,493,421  23,626,756  22,811,066  26,205,984  44,304,487  49,832,740  
Annualized 
Cost.........  3,226,048  3,086,842  3,423,819  3,423,819  6,649,867  6,510,661  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
4. Benefits  
    Domestic producers and legitimate importers benefit from better  enforcement as a result of this 
rule. In fiscal year 2021, the EA PA process prevented the evasion of over $375 million in AD/CVD  
duties. \13\ As domestic producers and legitimate importers grow more  accustomed to the EAPA 
process, it is likely that this number will  increase but CBP is unable to quantify this growth at th is 
time. G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 29 - 
 
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    \13\ Source: CBP. CBP Trade and Travel Report. Available at  
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2022 -
Apr/FINAL%20FY2021_%20Trade%20and%20Travel%20Report%20%28508%20Compliant%29%
20%28April% 202022%29_0.pdf . Accessed on June 16, 2022. Although  data is available for some 
years prior to fiscal year 2021, in light  of the newness of the EAPA program, CBP does not believe 
the data  can be used to extrapolate a trend.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    Importers and domestic producers also benefit from increased  transparency and predictability in 
the processing of AD/CVD  evasion  allegations because of this rule. Previously, an alleger submitted 
an e-Allegation to CBP and CBP was not able to provide any subsequent  follow up to that alleger. 
This rule increased the transparency of the  allegation process and set clear time f rames for all parties 
involved.  Furthermore, CBP increased communication with the public as a result of  this rule, 
specifically regarding technical assistance and advice on  how to properly file AD/CVD evasion 
allegations. This outreach could  result in fast er processing and response times for grievances; 
however,  CBP is unable to quantify these benefits.  
    Additionally, this rule established a stronger working relationship  among CBP, the trade 
community, and foreign governments in the effort  to prevent eva sion of AD/CVD duties. This rule 
gave CBP access to more  information from all affected parties, which helps CBP improve AD/CVD  
enforcement. This rule helps prevent the circumvention of the AD/CVD  laws, which benefits domestic 
producers by shielding them fr om unfair  trade practices. Furthermore, to the extent that this rule 
reduces the  evasion of AD/CVD payments, the government will benefit through higher  AD/CVD 
revenue.  
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act  
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),  as amended  by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996,  requires agencies to prepare and make available 
to the public a  regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed  rule on small 
entities (i.e., small b usinesses, small organizations,  and small governmental jurisdictions) when the 
agency is required to  publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a  general 
notice of proposed rulemaking was not necessary for the IFR,  CBP is not require d to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis for  this rule.  
Paperwork Reduction Act  
    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d))  requires that CBP consider the 
impact of paperwork and other  information collection burdens imposed on the public. An agency 
may not  conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of  information unless the 
collection of information displays a valid  control number assigned by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB).  
    The e -Allegations submission information collection, which is  assigned OMB control 
number:  1651-0131, \14\ is being amended to reflect  the change in burden hours caused by the 
EAPA requirements, and to  include the EAPA Portal as described above, and to reflect th e provisions 
of Sec. Sec.  165.5(a) and 165.23(a). To create an account  to access the EAPA Portal and submit 
an EAPA allegation, users provide  their first name, last name, and email address and the process of  
account creation is estimated to take three min utes (0.05 hours). CBP  estimates that the creation 
of 250 EAPA Portal accounts annually will  add a total time burden of approximately 13 hours to the 
public.  
 
[[Page 19258]]  
 
CBP estimates that 149 EAPA allegations will be filed annually which is  an increase of 82 from what 
was previously approved by OMB. These  additional 82 EAPA allegations will result in an additional 
time burden  of approximately 13 hours to the public, resulting in a total time  burden of 30 hours to 
the public. In total, this rule resulted in an  overall increase of 26 burden hours from what is currently 
approved by  OMB. This increases the total burden hours for this collection from 289  to 315. The 
e-Allegations submission revisions described in this rule  have been submitted to OMB f or review and 
approval in accordance with  the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507). 
OMB control number 1651 -0131 is being revised to reflect the change in  burden hours for EAPA 
respondents (i.e., those responding to the EAPA  submiss ion requirements) and to confirm the burden 
hours for e - Allegations as follows:  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 30 - 
 
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
    \14\ CBP notes that the TVR system continues to be used for  purposes other than EAPA.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
E-Allegations  
    Estimated number of annual respondents: 1,088.  
    Estimated number of annual responses: 1,088.  
    Estimated time burden per response: 15 minutes (.25 hours).  
    Estimated total annual time burden: 272 hours.  
EAPA Allegations  
    Estimated number of annual respondents: 149.  
    Estimated number of annual responses: 149.  
    Estimated time burden per res ponse: 12 minutes (0.20 hours).  
    Estimated total annual time burden: 30 hours.  
EAPA Portal Account Creation  
    Estimated number of annual respondents: 250.  
    Estimated number of annual responses: 250.  
    Estimated time burden per response: 3 minutes  (0.05 hours).  
    Estimated total annual time burden: 13 hours.  
    Comments concerning the collections of information and the accuracy  of the estimated annual 
burden, and suggestions for reducing that  burden, should be submitted to OMB via 
https://www.reginfo.gov . 
Signing Authority  
    This document is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)  pertaining to the authority of 
the Secretary of the Treasury (or the  Secretary's delegate) to approve regulations related to certain 
customs  revenue functions.  
    Troy A. Miller, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the  Commissioner, having reviewed and 
approved this document, has delegated  the authority to electronically sign thi s document to the 
Director (or  Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law  Division of CBP, for 
purposes of publication in the Federal Register.  
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 165  
    Administrative practice and procedure, Busine ss and industry,  Imports.  
Amendments to the Regulations  
    For the reasons given above, the IFR, which was published at 81 FR  56477 on August 22, 2016, 
adding part 165 to Chapter I of the CBP  regulations (19 CFR part 165), is adopted as final with the 
following  changes:  
PART 165 --INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS OF EVASION OF ANTIDUMPING AND  COUNTERVAILING 
DUTIES  
 
0 
1. The general authority citation for part 165 continues to read as  follows:  
    Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1481, 1484, 1508, 1517 (as added by  Pub. L . 114 -125, 130 Stat. 122, 
155 (19 U.S.C. 4301 note)), 1623,  1624, 1671, 1673.  
0 
2. Section 165.1 is amended by:  
0 
a. Revising the definition of "Allegation "; 
0 
b. Adding the definition "Business day " in alphabetical order;  
0 G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 31 - 
 
  c. Revising the definition of "Evade or evasion "; and  
0 
d. Revising the definition of "TRLED ". 
    The addition and revisions read as follows : 
Sec.  165.1  Definitions.  
* * * * *  
    Allegation. The term "allegation " refers to a filing with CBP  under Sec.  165.11 by an interested 
party that alleges an act of  evasion of AD/CVD orders by an importer.  
* * * * *  
    Business day. The term "business day " means a weekday (Monday  through Friday), excluding 
national holidays as specified in Sec.  101.6(a) of this chapter.  
* * * * *  
    Evade or E vasion. The terms "evade " and "evasion " refer to the  entry of covered merchandise 
into the customs territory of the United  States for consumption by means of any document or 
electronically  transmitted data or information, written or oral statement, or act that  is material and 
false, or any omission that is material, and that  results in any cash deposit or other security or any 
amount of  applicable antidumping or countervailing duties being reduced or not  being applied with 
respect to the c overed merchandise. Examples of  evasion include, but are not limited to, the 
transshipment,  misclassification, and/or undervaluation of covered merchandise.  
* * * * *  
    TRLED. The term "TRLED " refers to the Trade Remedy Law  Enforcement Directorate, Offic e of 
Trade, that conducts the  investigation of alleged evasion under this part, and that was  established 
as required by section 411 of the Trade Facilitation and  Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA).  
0 
f. Section 165.3 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as  follows:  
Sec.  165.3   Power of attorney.  
* * * * *  
    (f) Return of submission. If a party has not provided proof of  execution of a power of attorney to 
CBP within five business days of an  agent's first submission on behalf of an  interested party pursuant 
to paragraph (e) of this section, or proof of authority to execute a power  of attorney, if requested 
by CBP, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this  section, CBP will reject the submission and will not consider 
or place  such submission  on the administrative record.  
0 
4. Section 165.4 is amended by:  
0 
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (a) and (b);  
0 
b. Revising paragraph (b)(3) and (e);  
0 
c. Adding a new paragraph (f).  
    The revisions and addition read as follows:  
Sec.  1 65.4  Release of information provided by interested parties.  
    (a) Claim for business confidential treatment. Any interested party  that makes a submission to 
CBP in connection with an investigation  under this part, including for its initiation and admini strative  
review, may request that CBP treat any part of the submission as  business confidential information 
except for the information specified  in paragraph (c) of this section. If the requirements of this 
section  are satisfied and the information for whi ch protection is sought  consists of trade secrets 
and/or commercial or financial information  obtained from any person, which is privileged or 
confidential in  accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), CBP will grant business  confidential treatment G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 32 - 
 
  and issue an ad ministrative protective order  pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. All documents 
and 
 
[[Page 19259]]  
 
communications that are submitted to CBP after notice of initiation of  an investigation must be 
served on all parties to the investigation by  the su bmitting entity (for business confidential 
documents, a public  version must be served as well, in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of  this 
section).  
* * * * *  
    (b) Nonconforming submissions. CBP will reject a submission that  includes a request for busin ess 
confidential treatment but does not  meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and will 
not consider or place such submission on the administrative record unless  the submitting interested 
party takes any of the actions in paragraph  (b)(2) of this section within the timeframe specified in 
paragraph  (b)(2) of this section.  
* * * * *  
    (3) Effects of rejection. If the submitting interested party does  not take any of the actions in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this  section, CBP will no t consider the rejected submission, not 
place such  submission on the administrative record, and, if applicable, adverse  inferences may be 
drawn pursuant to Sec.  165.6.  
* * * * *  
    (e) Information placed on the record by CBP. Any information that  CBP pla ces on the 
administrative record, when obtained other than from  an interested party subject to the 
requirements of this section, will  include a public summary of the business confidential information 
as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, when a pplicable. If CBP  places information on the 
record from parties who are not already  subject to the requirements of this section, CBP will require 
these  parties to conform to the requirements of this section and Sec.  165.5  when filing submissions. 
Otherwis e, such submissions may be treated as  nonconforming submissions pursuant to 
paragraph  (b) of this section  and/or Sec.  165.5(b)(4).  
    (f) Administrative protective order. In each investigation where  CBP has granted a request by an 
interested party to tre at any part of  its submission as business confidential information, CBP will 
issue an  administrative protective order which will contain terms to allow the  representatives of 
parties to the investigation to access the business  confidential information.  
0 
5. Section 165.5 is amended by:  
0 
a. Revising paragraph (b)(2) introductory text;  
0 
b. Removing in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) the reference "19 CFR " and adding in its place "Sec. "; 
0 
c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(4); and  
0 
d. Revising paragraphs (c)( 1) and (2).  
    The revisions and addition read as follows:  
Sec.  165.5  Obtaining and submitting information.  
* * * * *  
    (b) * * *  
    (2) Certifications. Every written submission made to CBP by an  interested party or requested by 
CBP from any other pa rty pursuant to  Sec. Sec.  165.4 and 165.5 must be accompanied by the 
following  certifications from the person making the submission:  
* * * * *  
    (4) Nonconforming submissions. CBP will reject a submission that  does not meet the requirements 
of paragraph  (b) of this section and  will not consider it or place it on the administrative record.  
    (c) * * *  
    (1) Requests for extensions. CBP may, for good cause, extend any  regulatory time limit, or any 
deadline for the submission of  information requested by  CBP, if a party requests an extension in a  
separate, stand -alone submission and states the reasons for the  request. Such requests must be 
submitted no less than three business  days before the time limit expires unless there are G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 33 - 
 
  extraordinary  circumstances . An extraordinary circumstance is an unexpected event  that could not 
have been prevented even if reasonable measures had been  taken by the requester. It is within 
CBP's reasonable discretion to  determine what constitutes extraordinary circumstances, what  
constitutes good cause, and to grant or deny a request for an  extension.  
    (2) Rejection of untimely submissions. If a submission is untimely  filed, CBP will not consider it 
or place it on the administrative  record and adverse inferen ces may be applied, if applicable.  
0 
6. Section 165.6 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as  follows:  
Sec.  165.6  Adverse inferences . 
* * * * *  
    (b) Adverse inferences described. An adverse inference used under  paragraph (a) may include 
reliance on information derived from an  allegation, a prior determination in another CBP 
investigation,  proceeding, or action that involves evasion of AD/CVD or ders, or any  other available 
information on the administrative record.  
* * * * *  
0 
7. Section 165.12 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as  follows:  
Sec.  165.12  Receipt  of allegations.  
* * * * *  
    (b) Withdrawal. An allegation may be withdrawn  by the party that  filed it if that party submits a 
request to withdraw the allegation to  the designated email address specified by CBP or through any 
other  method approved  or designated by CBP.  
0 
8. Section 165.13 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and  (d) to read  as follows:  
Sec.  165.13   Consolidation  of allegations.  
* * * * *  
    (c) Notice. Notice of consolidation will be promptly transmitted to  all parties to the investigation 
if consolidation occurs at a point in  the investigation after which the y have already been notified of 
the ongoing investigation. Otherwise, parties will be notified no later  than five business days after 
day 90 of the investigation.  
    (d) Service requirements for other parties to the investigation.  Upon notification of con solidation, 
parties to the consolidated  investigation must serve on the newly added parties to the  investigation, 
via an email message or through any other method  approved or designated by CBP, public 
documents and the public versions  of any documents that  were previously served on parties to the  
unconsolidated investigation . Service must take place within five  business days of the notice of 
consolidation.  
0 
9. Section 165.14 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as  follows:  
Sec.  165.14  Other Federal agency requests for investigation . 
    (a) Requests for investigations. Any other Federal agency,  including but not limited to the 
Department of Commerce or the United  States International Trade Commission, may request an 
invest igation  under this part. CBP will initiate an investigation if the Federal  agency has provided 
information that reasonably suggests that an  importer has entered covered merchandise into the 
customs territory of  the United States through evasion, unless the  agency submits a request  to G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 34 - 
 
  withdraw to the designated email address specified by CBP or through  any other method approved 
or designated by CBP.  
* * * * *  
0 
10. Section 165.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (e) to  read as follows:  
Sec.  165. 15   Initiation of investigations.  
* * * * *  
    (d) * * *  
    (1) In general. CBP will issue a notice of its decision to initiate  an 
 
[[Page 19260]]  
 
investigation to all parties to the investigation no later than five  business days after day 90 of the 
investigation, and the actual date of  initiation of the investigation will be specified therein. In cases  
where interim measures are taken pursuant to Sec.  165.24, notice to  all parties to the investigation 
will occur no later than five business  days afte r day 90 of the investigation.  
* * * * *  
    (e) Record of the investigation. If an investigation is initiated  pursuant to subpart B of this part, 
then the information considered by  CBP prior to initiation will be part of the administrative record  
pursuant  to Sec.  165.21. Any documents submitted prior to the issuance  of a notice of CBP's decision 
to initiate an investigation will be  served by CBP on the parties to the investigation, regardless of 
who submitted those documents.  
0 
11. Section 165.16 is amend ed by revising paragraph (d).  
Sec.  165.16   Referrals to Department of Commerce.  
* * * * *  
    (d) Effect on investigation. The time period required for any  referral and determination by the 
Department of Commerce will not be  counted toward the deadlines for CBP to decide on whether to 
initiate  an investigation under Sec.  165.15, whether to take interim measures  under Sec.  165.24, 
or the deadline to issue a determination as to  evasion under Sec.  165.27.  
* * * * *  
0 
12. Section 165.22 is amended by:  
0 
a. In paragraph (a) removing the words "not later " and adding in  their place the words "no later "; 
0 
b. Revising paragraph (b);  
0 
c. In paragraph (d), removing the words "not later " and adding in  their place the words "no later "; 
and 
0 
c. In paragraph (d), removing the word "Notification " and adding in  its place the word "Notice ". 
    The revision reads as follows:  
Sec.  165.22   Time for investigations.  
* * * * *  
    (b) Time for determination with consolidated allegations. If CBP  conso lidates multiple allegations 
under Sec.  165.13 into a single  investigation under Sec.  165.15, the date of receipt of the first  
properly filed allegation will be used for the purposes of the  requirement under paragraph (a) of this 
section with respect to the timing of the initiation of the investigation.  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 35 - 
 
  * * * * *  
0 
13. Section 165.23 is amended by:  
0 
a. Revising paragraph (b);  
0 
b. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (c)(1);  
0 
c. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and  
0 
d. Revising paragraph (d).  
    The revi sions read as follows:  
Sec.  165.23  Submission of factual information.  
* * * * *  
    (b) Voluntary submission of factual information. The parties to the  investigation may submit 
additional information in order to support the  allegation of evasion or to ne gate or clarify the 
allegation of  evasion.  
    (c) * * *  
    (1) * * * If CBP places new factual information on the  administrative record on or after the 
deadline for submissions of new  factual information pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section (or 
if such information is placed on the record at CBP's request), the parties  to the investigation will 
have 10 calendar days to provide rebuttal  information to the new factual information.  
    (2) Voluntary submission of factual information. (i) Factual  information voluntarily submitted to 
CBP pursuant to paragraph (b) of  this section must be submitted no later than 200 calendar days 
after CBP initiated the investigation under Sec.  165.15, unless this  deadline is officially extended 
by CBP solely at CBP's dis cretion. If  CBP extends this deadline, parties to the investigation will be  
notified and may make submissions up through the end of the extended  deadline. Voluntary 
submissions made after the 200th calendar day after  initiation of the investigation, or aft er the 
extended deadline, will  not be considered or placed on the administrative record, except  rebuttal 
information as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this  section. The public version must also be served 
via an email message or  through any other metho d approved or designated by CBP on the parties  
to the investigation.  
    (ii) Parties to the investigation will have 10 calendar days from  the date of placement of any new 
factual information on the record to  provide rebuttal information to that new factual information, if 
the information being rebutted was placed on the administrative record no  later than 200 calendar 
days after CBP initiated the investigation  under Sec.  165.15, or no later than the extended deadline.  
    (d) Oral discussions. Notwi thstanding the time limits in paragraph  (c) of this section, CBP may 
request oral discussion either in -person  or by teleconference. CBP will memorialize such discussions 
with a  written summary that identifies who participated and the topic of  discussion, a nd place the 
written summary on the administrative record.  In the event that business confidential information 
is included in the  written summary, CBP will also place a public version on the  administrative record.  
0 
14. Section Sec.  165.24 is amended by r evising paragraph (c) to read  as follows:  
Sec.  165.24   Interim measures.  
* * * * *  
    (c) Notice. If CBP decides that there is reasonable suspicion under  paragraph (a) of this section, 
CBP will issue a notice of this decision  to the parties to the inves tigation within five business days 
after taking interim measures. CBP will also provide parties to the  investigation with a public version 
of the administrative record within  10 business days of the issuance of a notice of initiation of an  
investigation.  
0 
15. Section 165.25 is amended by:  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 36 - 
 
  0 
a. Revising paragraph (b); and  
0 
b. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (d).  
    The revision and additions read as follows:  
Sec.  165.25   Verifications of information.  
* * * * *  
    (b) CBP may conduct verifications before and after the deadline for  the voluntary submission of 
new factual information as referenced in  Sec.  165.23. The general purpose of the verification is to 
verify the  accuracy of the information already placed on the administrative  record.  
    (c) CBP will  place a report about the verification, i.e., the  verification report, on the administrative 
record. CBP will require the  party that underwent the verification to place verification exhibits on  the 
administrative record. Verification exhibits will generall y contain  information compiled and verified 
by CBP at CBP's discretion during the  verification. In accordance with Sec.  165.4, both CBP and the 
party  that underwent the verification will provide public versions of their  verification documents, 
which will be served on all parties to the  investigation. CBP will not accept voluntary submissions of 
new factual  information at the verification after the deadline for voluntary  submission of new factual 
information, as referenced in Sec.  165.23.  Parties to the in vestigation cannot submit rebuttal 
information to  either CBP's verification report or the verification exhibits. Parties  to the investigation 
may submit to CBP written arguments in relation to  the verification report and/or its exhibits in 
accordance with Sec.  165.26.  
    (d) If CBP determines that information discovered during a  verification is  
 
[[Page 19261]]  
 
relevant to the investigation and constitutes new factual information,  CBP will place it on the 
administrative record separately, i n accordance with Sec.  165.23, and allow parties to the 
investigation to  submit rebuttal information.  
0 
16. Section 165.26 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and  (d)(2) to read as follows:  
Sec.  165.26  Written arguments.  
* * * * *  
    (a) Written arguments. Parties to the investigation:  
    (1) May submit to CBP written arguments that contain all arguments  that are relevant to the 
determination as to evasion and based solely  upon facts already on the administrative record in that 
proceeding. All  written arguments must be:  
    (i) Submitted to the designated email address specified by CBP or  through any other method 
approved or designated by CBP;  
    (ii) Submitted no later than 230 calendar days after the  investigation was initiated pursuant to 
Sec.  165.15, unless extended  by CBP solely at CBP's discretion but no later than 300 calendar days  
after the investigation was initiated, or 360 calendar days after the  investigation was initiated if the 
deadline for a determination as to  evasion has been extended by CBP pursuant to Sec.  165.22(c); 
and 
    (2) Must serve a public version of the written arguments prepared  in accordance with Sec.  165.4 
on the other parties to the  investigation by an email message or through any other method app roved  
or designated by CBP the same day it is filed with CBP.  
    (b) Responses to the written arguments. Parties to the  investigation:  
    (1) May submit to CBP a response to a written argument filed by  another party to the 
investigation, fulfilling the f ollowing  requirements:  
    (i) The response must be in writing and submitted to the designated  email address specified by 
CBP, or through any other method approved or  designated by CBP, no later than 15 calendar days 
after the written  argument was filed wi th CBP, unless extended by CBP solely at CBP's  discretion; 
and G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 37 - 
 
      (ii) The response must be limited to the issues raised in the  written argument; any portion of a 
response that is outside the scope  of the issues raised in the written argument will not be considered;  
and 
    (2) Must serve a public version of the response prepared in  accordance with Sec.  165.4 on the 
other parties to the investigation  by an email message or through any other method approved or 
designated  by CBP the same day it is filed wit h CBP.  
    (c) Written arguments submitted upon request. Notwithstanding  paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section, CBP may request written  arguments on any issue from the parties to the investigation at 
any time during an investigation.  
    (d) * * *  
    (2) A concise summary of the argument or response to the argument;  
* * * * *  
0 
17. Section 165.28 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as  follows:  
Sec.  165.28   Assessments of duties owed; other actions.  
* * * * *  
    (c) Cash deposits and duty asses sment. CBP will require the posting  of cash deposits and assess 
duties on entries of covered merchandise  subject to its affirmative determination of evasion in 
accordance with  the instructions received from the Department of Commerce.  
0 
18. Revise the heading to subpart D to read as follows:  
Subpart D --Administrative Review of Determinations as to Evasion  
0 
19. Section 165.41 is amended by:  
0 
a. Removing the word "initial " in the section heading and each time  it appears in the section;  
0 
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (f);  
0 
c. Revising paragraph (h); and  
0 
d. Removing the last sentence of paragraph (i).  
    The revisions read as follows:  
Sec.  165.41   Filing a request for review of the determination as to  evasion.  
* * * * *  
    (f) Content. Each request for review must be based solely on the  facts on the administrative 
record in the proceeding, in writing, and  may not exceed 30 pages in total (including exhibits but 
not table of  contents or table of authorities). It must be d ouble -spaced with  headings and footnotes 
single spaced, margins one inch on all four  sides, and 12 -point font Times New Roman. If it exceeds 
10 pages, it  must include a table of contents and a table of cited authorities. CBP  will reject a request 
for revie w that does not meet the requirements of  this paragraph, and will not consider it or place 
it on the  administrative record. Each request for review must set forth the  following:  
* * * * *  
    (h) Consolidation of requests for administrative review. Multipl e requests under the same 
allegation control number assigned by CBP may  be consolidated into a single administrative review 
matter.  
* * * * *  
0 
20. Revise Sec.  165.42 to read as follows:  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 38 - 
 
  Sec.  165.42  Responses to requests for administrative review.  
    Any party to the investigation, regardless of whether it submitted  a request for administrative 
review, may submit a written response to  the filed request(s) for review. A party who submitted a 
request for  administrative review may not respond to its own su bmission. Each  written response 
may not exceed 30 pages in total (including exhibits  but not table of contents or table of authorities) 
and must follow the  requirements in Sec.  165.41(f). The written responses to the  request(s) for 
review must be limited to the issues raised in the  request(s) for review and must be based solely on 
the facts already on  the administrative record in that proceeding. The responses must be  filed in a 
manner prescribed by CBP no later than 10 business days from  the commencement of the 
administrative review. All responses must be  accompanied by the certifications provided for in 
Sec.  165.5. Each  party seeking business confidential treatment must comply with the  requirements 
in Sec.  165.4. The public version of the response(s) to  the request(s) for review must be provided 
to the other parties to the  investigation via an email message or through any other method approved  
or designated by CBP.  
0 
21. Revise Sec.  165.44 to read as follows:  
Sec.  165.44  Additional information.  
    CBP may request additional written information from the parties to  the investigation at any time 
during the review process. The parties  who provide the requested additional information must 
provide a public  version to the other parties to the investigation via an email message  or through 
any other method approved or designated by CBP. The  submission of additional information 
requested by CBP must comply with  requirements for release of information in Sec.  165.4. CBP may 
apply  an adverse infere nce as stated in Sec.  165.6 if the additional  information requested under 
this section is not provided. CBP will only  accept written submissions of additional information in 
response to a  request by CBP. No meetings or any other methods of unsolicited  submission of 
additional information are permitted during the  administrative review.  
0 
22. Revise Sec.  165.45 to read as follows:  
 
[[Page 19262]]  
 
Sec.  165.45   Standard for administrative review.  
    CBP will apply a de novo standard of review and will render a  determination appropriate under 
law according to the specific facts and  circumstances on the record. For that purpose, CBP will review 
the entire administrative record upon which the determi nation as to evasion  was made, the timely 
and properly filed request(s) for review and  responses, and any additional information that was 
received in response  to a request by CBP pursuant to Sec.  165.44. The administrative review  will 
be completed within 60 business days of the commencement of the  review.  
0 
23. Section Sec.  165.46 is amended by:  
0 
a. Removing in paragraph (a) the acronym "EAPA" and adding in its  place the acronym "TFTEA "; 
and 
0 
b. Revising paragraph (b).  
    The revision reads as follows:  
Sec.  165.46  Final administrative determination.  
* * * * *  
    (b) Effect of the administrative review. If the administrative  review affirms the determination as 
to evasion, then no further CBP  action is needed. If the administrative review reverses the  G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.35 • G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.36  
 
- 39 - 
 
  determination as to evasion, then CBP will take appropriate actions  consistent with the 
administrative review.  
Robert F. Altneu,  
Director, Regulations & Disclosure Law Division, Regulations & Rulings,  Office of Trade, U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection.  
Aviva R. Aron -Dine, 
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy.  
[FR Doc. 2024 -04713 Filed 3 -15-24; 8:45 am]  
BILLING CODE 9111 -14-P 
 
__________