```

[Senate Report 112-209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 500
112th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     112-209

======================================================================

 
       ENFORCING ORDERS AND REDUCING CUSTOMS EVASION ACT OF 2012

                                _______
                                

               September 10, 2012.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

              Mr. Baucus, from the Committee on Finance, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 3524]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Finance, having considered S. 3524, the 
Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion Act of 2012 
(``the ENFORCE Act of 2012''), an original bill to deter the 
evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders, and for 
other purposes, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 
refers the bill to the full Senate with a recommendation that 
the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Report and Other Matters of the Committee........................1
      A. Report of the Committee on Finance......................     1
      B. Background and General Reasons for the Bill.............     2
          1. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders..........     2
          2. Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
              Orders.............................................     3
          3. Congressional Action................................     4
          4. Committee Consideration.............................     4
      C. General Description of the Bill.........................     4
 II. Budgetary Impact of S. 3524......................................6
III. Regulatory Impact of the Bill and Other Matters..................8
 IV. Changes in Existing Law..........................................8

              I. Report and Other Matters of the Committee

                 A. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

    The Committee on Finance, having considered S. 3524, the 
ENFORCE Act of 2012, an original bill to enhance U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection's (CBP) enforcement of antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders by investigating and taking actions 
to prevent evasion, reports favorably thereon without amendment 
and refers the bill to the full Senate with a recommendation 
that the bill do pass.

             B. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL REASONS FOR THE BILL

    The Committee on Finance considered S. 3524 in the context 
of heightened concern from a range of U.S. industries and 
stakeholders that significant evasion of antidumping (AD) and 
countervailing duty (CVD) orders continues to occur, as well as 
concerns that CBP's efforts to combat evasion lack sufficient 
transparency. In addition, CBP currently lacks an established 
set of procedures for it to conduct timely investigations of 
alleged evasion. A recent report by the General Accountability 
Office, entitled Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: 
Management Enhancements Needed to Improve Efforts to Detect and 
Deter Duty Evasion, GAO-12-55, also raised concerns about 
evasion.

1. Antidumping and countervailing duty orders

    AD laws provide relief to domestic industries that have 
been injured or are threatened by imported merchandise sold in 
the U.S. market at prices below fair market value (typically, 
the price the foreign firm charges for a comparable product 
sold in its home market or less than the foreign firm's cost of 
production). CVD laws provide relief to domestic industries 
that have been injured or are threatened by imported 
merchandise sold in the U.S. market that has been unfairly 
subsidized by a foreign government or public entity and sold at 
lower prices than similar goods produced in the United States. 
AD and CVD laws provide for additional import duties to be 
placed on the dumped and/or subsidized imports to mitigate the 
unfair dumping or subsidization of those imports. Statutory 
authority for AD and CVD investigations derives from Title VII 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements 
Act of 1979, and as subsequently amended.
    Under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Department 
of Commerce (Commerce) is responsible for determining whether 
imported merchandise has been dumped and/or unfairly 
subsidized. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is 
responsible for determining whether dumping and/or 
countervailable subsidies have injured, or threaten to injure, 
domestic producers of similar merchandise. If both Commerce and 
ITC issue affirmative final determinations, Commerce issues AD 
and/or CVD orders, which establish cash deposit rates on 
entries of imported merchandise subject to the order. Those 
entries will be liquidated at the cash deposit rate, unless 
interested parties request an administrative review to 
determine the actual level of dumping and/or countervailable 
subsidies during the period of review. CBP is responsible for 
the collection of cash deposits and ultimate duties on imports 
of subject merchandise.
    According to the above-mentioned General Accountability 
Office report, as of March 2012, there were 283 AD and CVD 
orders in effect on a range of U.S. imports.

2. Evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders

    Evasion refers to entering merchandise into the United 
States for consumption by an act or omission that is material 
and false, and which results in AD or CVD duties being reduced, 
not applied to, or collected on such merchandise. Examples of 
evasion could include, but are not limited to, the 
misrepresentation of the merchandise's true country of origin 
(through fraudulent country-of-origin markings on the product 
itself and false sales), shipping and entry documentation, and 
misreporting of the merchandise's physical characteristics.
    As noted above, CBP is responsible for ensuring that the 
appropriate duties are collected on imports of subject 
merchandise. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is 
responsible for conducting criminal investigations of customs 
evasion.
    In recent years, through the cooperation of several Federal 
agencies, there have been indictments, convictions, and prison 
sentences for evaders of AD/CVD orders. Deputy Assistant 
Secretary (DAS) for Import Administration Ronald K. Lorentzen 
described several Federal criminal cases involving evaders of 
AD/CVD orders in his May 5, 2011 testimony at a hearing of the 
Committee on Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, 
Customs, and Global Competitiveness on the subject of 
enforcement of U.S. trade laws in the face of customs fraud and 
duty evasion.
    In his testimony, DAS Lorentzen described how in one case 
Federal prosecutors obtained an indictment against a German 
food conglomerate and several of its executives for conspiring 
to illegally import into the United States more than $40 
million of honey from China between 2002 and 2009 and 
concealing its country of origin in order to avoid paying 
nearly $80 million in AD duties.
    In another case, according to Lorentzen, a U.S. importer 
was arrested and charged with fraud, smuggling, and money 
laundering in connection with importing Chinese-made hangers 
into the United States by transshipping the goods through a 
third country and falsely claiming a country of origin other 
than China. In a third example, involving frozen fish fillets 
from Vietnam, Lorentzen explained that prosecutors obtained 
several convictions and prison sentences when Vietnamese 
exporters and U.S. importers intentionally mislabeled frozen 
fish fillets subject to AD duties as different types of fish so 
as to evade those duties.
    Notwithstanding these Federal criminal cases, several U.S. 
industries and stakeholders have raised concerns to Congress 
and the Administration in recent years that (1) CBP does not 
have a uniform and established process for investigating 
allegations of evasion; (2) CBP does not provide any 
information to U.S. producers alleging evasion on the ultimate 
disposition by CBP of their allegations of evasion; and (3) 
significant evasion of AD and CVD duties continues to occur.
    Under current customs laws, CBP can take enforcement 
actions against the evasion of AD and CVD orders, which 
includes the assessment of civil penalties against importers 
who attempt to evade such orders. Current customs laws do not, 
however, establish a set of specific formal procedures for 
interested parties and other Federal agencies to submit to CBP 
good faith allegations and evidence of evasion. Current law 
does not require CBP to take specific enforcement actions to 
prevent evasion when substantial evidence of evasion is 
established. CBP also has no current obligation or authority to 
notify parties that submit valid allegations of evasion as to 
the outcome of CBP's determination. Finally, there is no formal 
process for administrative or judicial review of CBP's 
determination regarding a valid evasion allegation.

3. Congressional action

    In the 112th Congress, Members of the House and Senate 
introduced legislation to address the ongoing problems with AD/
CVD evasion. Senator Wyden introduced S. 1133, the Enforcing 
Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion Act of 2011, and 
Representative Long introduced H.R. 3057, a companion House 
bill to S. 1133 and titled the same. In addition, 
Representative Boustany introduced H.R. 5708, the Preventing 
Recurring Trade Evasion and Circumvention Act (the PROTECT 
Act).

4. Committee consideration

    On July 13, 2012, following consultation with Ranking 
Member Hatch and Senator Wyden (the latter of whom was the 
chief sponsor of S. 1133), Chairman Baucus announced his mark 
of an original bill to enhance CBP's enforcement of AD and CVD 
orders by investigating and taking actions to prevent evasion.
    The Senate Committee on Finance met in open executive 
session on July 18, 2012 to consider four legislative 
proposals, including the Chairman's Mark of the ENFORCE Act of 
2012. During the Committee's consideration of the proposal, two 
amendments were offered and withdrawn. The first amendment was 
offered by Senator Hatch and would have established a U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection Reimbursement Pilot Program for 
user fees for CBP services at airports, seaports, and land 
ports as part of the underlying bill. The second amendment was 
offered by Senator Stabenow and would have added the Senator's 
Protect American Innovation Act to the underlying bill. The 
Committee ultimately approved the Chairman's Mark of the 
ENFORCE Act by voice vote.

                   C. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BILL

    Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill as the 
Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion Act of 2012.
    Section 2 amends the Tariff Act of 1930 by creating a set 
of procedures for investigating allegations of evasion of 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders, under newly created 
section 517, as described below.
    The bill requires the Commissioner responsible for CBP (the 
Commissioner), acting pursuant to the delegation of authority 
by the Secretary of Treasury over customs revenue functions, to 
initiate an investigation within ten business days of receipt 
of a proper allegation or referral that reasonably suggests 
that merchandise covered by an AD/CVD order is entering the 
United States through evasion. The Commissioner may accept 
allegations by U.S. producers of, or further processors of 
merchandise that is like or most similar to, merchandise 
covered by the AD/CVD order who allege that such covered 
merchandise is entering the United States through evasion. 
Referrals of evasion also may be submitted to the Commissioner 
by other Federal agencies. The bill requires the Commissioner 
to make a determination not later than 270 calendar days after 
the date of initiation of an evasion investigation with respect 
to whether there is substantial evidence that the merchandise 
under investigation was entered into the United States through 
evasion.
    The bill authorizes the Commissioner to request information 
from the U.S. producer making the allegation, as well as the 
importer, foreign producer, and foreign exporter of the alleged 
covered merchandise. The Commissioner may also request 
information from the government of the foreign country from 
which the alleged covered merchandise was exported. The bill 
provides that the Commissioner may make an adverse inference if 
the importer, exporter, or producer of the merchandise under 
investigation, or the U.S. producer making the allegation, did 
not act to the best of its ability to provide information 
requested by the Commissioner. The bill further requires the 
Commissioner, no later than five business days after making a 
determination, to notify the U.S. producer who made an 
allegation that initiated an evasion investigation of the 
determination.
    If the Commissioner makes an affirmative determination of 
evasion, the Commissioner shall (1) suspend the liquidation of 
any unliquidated entries of the covered merchandise that is the 
subject of the allegation entered between the date of 
initiation and the date of the determination; (2) extend the 
period for liquidating any unliquidated entries of merchandise 
that entered before the initiation of the investigation; (3) 
notify Commerce of the determination and request that Commerce 
determine the appropriate duty rates for such covered 
merchandise; (4) require importers of such covered merchandise 
to post cash deposits and require CBP to assess duties on the 
covered merchandise as directed by Commerce; and (5) take such 
additional enforcement measures as the Commissioner deems 
appropriate, including modifying CBP's procedures for 
identifying future evasion, requiring a deposit of estimated 
duties on future entries, and referring the matter to ICE for 
civil or criminal investigation.
    In order to ensure that appropriate duties can be collected 
on entries of covered merchandise made during the pendency of 
an investigation, the bill sets forth an interim measures 
mechanism. Under this mechanism, the Commissioner shall 
determine within ninety calendar days of initiation of an 
evasion investigation whether there is a reasonable suspicion 
that entries of covered merchandise that are the subject of the 
allegation were entered through evasion. If the Commissioner 
decides there is a reasonable suspicion, the Commissioner shall 
(1) suspend the liquidation of any unliquidated entries of the 
covered merchandise entered after the date of initiation; (2) 
extend the period for liquidating any unliquidated entries of 
merchandise that entered before the initiation of the 
investigation; and (3) take any additional measures necessary 
to protect the ability to collect appropriate duties, which may 
include requiring a single transaction bond or posting cash 
deposits with respect to entries of covered merchandise. If the 
Commissioner determines that the merchandise being investigated 
poses a health or safety risk, CBP may notify the appropriate 
Federal agencies of that risk.
    The bill provides a period of thirty business days for the 
U.S. producer who made the allegation of evasion or the 
importer of the covered merchandise alleged to have entered the 
merchandise subject to the evasion determination to request de 
novo administrative review by the Commissioner after 
notification of a determination. The bill also establishes that 
judicial review shall be available to the party alleging 
evasion or the party found to have entered merchandise subject 
to the investigation through evasion of any administrative 
review of the evasion determination by CBP.
    The effective date of the bill is 180 days after the date 
of enactment. In addition, the bill provides that the Secretary 
of the Treasury shall prescribe such regulations as may be 
necessary to implement the bill within 180 days of enactment.
    Section 3 of the bill requires the Commissioner to submit 
to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Ways and 
Means Committee of the House an annual report on the 
Commissioner's efforts to deter evasion of antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders.

                    II. Budgetary Impact of S. 3524

                                                     July 27, 2012.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for the Enforcing Orders 
and Reducing Customs Evasion Act of 2012.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kalyani 
Parthasarathy.
                        Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

S. 3524--Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion Act of 2012

    Summary: The Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion 
Act of 2012 would establish specific procedures for Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP), a part of the Department of Homeland 
Security, to follow when investigating allegations of evasion 
of antidumping or countervailing duties, and it would increase 
the ability of CBP to obtain information and collect such 
duties.
    CBO estimates that costs for additional CBP personnel to 
implement the bill would reach $1 million annually, assuming 
the availability of appropriated funds, beginning in fiscal 
year 2014. CBO estimates that enacting this bill would increase 
revenues by insignificant amounts in 2013, by $4 million over 
the 2013-2017 period, and by $13 million over the 2013-2022 
period. CBO also estimates that the bill would have no effect 
on direct spending. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because 
enacting the legislation would affect revenues.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of the Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs 
Evasion Act of 2012 is shown in the following table. The costs 
of this legislation fall primarily within budget function 750 
(administration of justice).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2013     2014     2015     2016     2017   2013-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level...........................        *        1        1        1        1         4
Estimated Outlays.......................................        *        1        1        1        1         4

                                               CHANGES IN REVENUES

Estimated Revenuesa.....................................        *        *        1        1        1        4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * indicates amounts that are between -$500,000 and $500,000. Components may not sum to totals because of
  rounding.
aEnacting the bill would increase revenues by $13 million over the 2012-2022 period (see Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
  table on page 3 for annual effects through 2022).

    Basis of estimate: For the purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that the bill will be enacted early in fiscal year 
2013.

Spending subject to appropriation

    Based on information from CBP, we expect the agency to hire 
up to 10 additional employees to carry out the bill's 
provisions. CBO estimates that costs for the additional 
personnel would reach $1 million annually from appropriated 
funds, beginning in fiscal year 2014, and total $4 million over 
the 2013-2017 period.

Revenues

    The bill would establish a set of procedures for CBP to 
follow when investigating allegations of antidumping and 
countervailing duties. Those procedures would include requiring 
expedited initiation of investigations and suspending the final 
assessment of tariffs on the goods alleged to be evading duties 
until the investigation is completed. The bill also would give 
CBP broader authority to collect information from both the 
party alleging evasion and the importer of the goods for making 
the preliminary and final determinations of evasion. The bill 
would permit CBP to take into account the cooperation of those 
parties in the investigation when assessing the evidence and 
reaching the final determination. Based on information provided 
by CBP, CBO estimates that enacting this bill would increase 
revenues by insignificant amounts in 2013, by $4 million over 
the 2013-2017 period, and by $13 million over the 2013-2022 
period.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. The net changes in revenues that are subject to those 
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table.

 CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS OF THE ENFORCING ORDERS AND REDUCING CUSTOMS EVASION ACT OF 2012, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
                                                                FINANCE ON JULY 18, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022   2012-2017  2012-2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact............       0       0       0      -1      -1      -1      -1      -2      -2      -2      -2        -4        -13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated intergovernmental and private-sector impact: The 
bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 
as defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kalyani Parthasarathy 
and Mark Grabowicz; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal 
Governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the Private Sector: 
Danielle Parnass.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director 
for Budget Analysis; Frank Sammartino, Assistant Director for 
Tax Analysis.

          III. Regulatory Impact of the Bill and Other Matters

    Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states 
that the resolution will not significantly regulate any 
individuals or businesses, will not affect the personal privacy 
of individuals, and will result in no significant additional 
paperwork. The following information is provided in accordance 
with section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA) (Pub. L. No. 104-04). The Committee has reviewed the 
provisions of S. 3326 as approved by the Committee on July 18, 
2012. In accordance with the requirement of Pub. L. No. 104-04, 
the Committee has determined that the bill contains no 
intergovernmental mandates, as defined in the UMRA, and would 
not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

                      IV. Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

TARIFF ACT OF 1930

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 517. PROCEDURES FOR INVESTIGATING CLAIMS OF EVASION OF ANTIDUMPING 
                    AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Administering authority.--The term 
        ``administering authority'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 771(1).
          (2) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means 
        the Commissioner responsible for U.S. Customs and 
        Border Protection, acting pursuant to the delegation by 
        the Secretary of the Treasury of the authority of the 
        Secretary with respect to customs revenue functions (as 
        defined in section 415 of the Homeland Security Act of 
        2002 (6 U.S.C. 215)).
          (3) Covered merchandise.--The term ``covered 
        merchandise'' means merchandise that is subject to--
                  (A) an antidumping duty order issued under 
                section 736;
                  (B) a finding issued under the Antidumping 
                Act, 1921; or
                  (C) a countervailing duty order issued under 
                section 706.
          (4) Enter; entry.--The terms ``enter'' and ``entry'' 
        refer to the entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for 
        consumption, of merchandise in the customs territory of 
        the United States.
          (5) Evasion.--
                  (A) In general.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (B), the term ``evasion'' refers 
                to entering covered merchandise into the 
                customs territory of the United States 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 merchandise.
                  (B) Exception for clerical error.--
                          (i) In general.--Except as provided 
                        in clause (ii), the term ``evasion'' 
                        does not include entering covered 
                        merchandise into the customs territory 
                        of the United States by means of--
                                  (I) a document or 
                                electronically transmitted data 
                                or information, written or oral 
                                statement, or act that is false 
                                as a result of a clerical 
                                error; or
                                  (II) an omission that results 
                                from a clerical error.
                          (ii) Patterns of negligent conduct.--
                        If the Commissioner determines that a 
                        person has entered covered merchandise 
                        into the customs territory of the 
                        United States by means of a clerical 
                        error referred to in subclause (I) or 
                        (II) of clause (i) and that the 
                        clerical error is part of a pattern of 
                        negligent conduct on the part of that 
                        person, the Commissioner may determine, 
                        notwithstanding clause (i), that the 
                        person has entered such covered 
                        merchandise into the customs territory 
                        of the United States through evasion.
                          (iii) Electronic repetition of 
                        errors.--For purposes of clause (ii), 
                        the mere nonintentional repetition by 
                        an electronic system of an initial 
                        clerical error does not constitute a 
                        pattern of negligent conduct.
                          (iv) Rule of construction.--A 
                        determination by the Commissioner that 
                        a person has entered covered 
                        merchandise into the customs territory 
                        of the United States by means of a 
                        clerical error referred to in subclause 
                        (I) or (II) of clause (i) rather than 
                        through evasion shall not be construed 
                        to excuse that person from the payment 
                        of any duties applicable to the 
                        merchandise.
    (b) Investigations.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 10 business days 
        after receiving an allegation described in paragraph 
        (2) or a referral described in paragraph (3), the 
        Commissioner shall initiate an investigation if the 
        Commissioner determines that the information provided 
        in the allegation or the referral, as the case may be, 
        reasonably suggests that covered merchandise has been 
        entered into the customs territory of the United States 
        through evasion.
          (2) Allegation described.--An allegation described in 
        this paragraph is an allegation that a person has 
        entered covered merchandise into the customs territory 
        of the United States through evasion that is--
                  (A) filed with the Commissioner by a person 
                that is a producer in the United States of 
                merchandise--
                          (i) that is like, or in the absence 
                        of like, most similar in 
                        characteristics and uses with, such 
                        covered merchandise; or
                          (ii) into which merchandise described 
                        in clause (i) is incorporated; and
                  (B) accompanied by information reasonably 
                available to the person that filed the 
                allegation.
          (3) Referral described.--A referral described in this 
        paragraph is information submitted to the Commissioner 
        by any other Federal agency, including the Department 
        of Commerce or the United States International Trade 
        Commission, that reasonably suggests that a person has 
        entered covered merchandise into the customs territory 
        of the United States through evasion.
          (4) Consolidation of allegations and referrals.--
                  (A) In general.--The Commissioner may 
                consolidate multiple allegations described in 
                paragraph (2) and referrals described in 
                paragraph (3) into a single investigation if 
                the Commissioner determines it is appropriate 
                to do so.
                  (B) Effect on timing requirements.--If the 
                Commissioner consolidates multiple allegations 
                or referrals into a single investigation under 
                subparagraph (A), the date on which the 
                Commissioner receives the first such allegation 
                or referral shall be used for purposes of the 
                requirement under paragraph (1) with respect to 
                the timing of the initiation of the 
                investigation.
          (5) Information-sharing to protect health and 
        safety.--If, during the course of conducting an 
        investigation under paragraph (1) with respect to 
        covered merchandise, the Commissioner has reason to 
        suspect that such covered merchandise may pose a health 
        or safety risk to consumers, the Commissioner shall 
        provide, as appropriate, information to the appropriate 
        Federal agencies for purposes of mitigating the risk.
    (c) Determinations.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 270 calendar days 
        after the date on which the Commissioner initiates an 
        investigation under subsection (b) with respect to 
        covered merchandise, the Commissioner shall make a 
        determination, based on substantial evidence, with 
        respect to whether such covered merchandise was entered 
        into the customs territory of the United States through 
        evasion.
          (2) Authority to collect and verify additional 
        information.--In making a determination under paragraph 
        (1) with respect to covered merchandise, the 
        Commissioner may collect such additional information as 
        is necessary to make the determination through such 
        methods as the Commissioner considers appropriate, 
        including by--
                  (A) issuing a questionnaire with respect to 
                such covered merchandise to--
                          (i) a person that filed an allegation 
                        under paragraph (2) of subsection (b) 
                        that resulted in the initiation of an 
                        investigation under paragraph (1) of 
                        that subsection with respect to such 
                        covered merchandise;
                          (ii) a person alleged to have entered 
                        such covered merchandise into the 
                        customs territory of the United States 
                        through evasion;
                          (iii) a person that is a foreign 
                        producer or exporter of such covered 
                        merchandise; or
                          (iv) the government of a country from 
                        which such covered merchandise was 
                        exported; and
                  (B) conducting verifications, including on-
                site verifications, of any relevant 
                information.
          (3) Adverse inference.--If the Commissioner finds 
        that a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) 
        of paragraph (2)(A) has failed to cooperate by not 
        acting to the best of the person's ability to comply 
        with a request for information, the Commissioner may, 
        in making a determination under paragraph (1), use an 
        inference that is adverse to the interests of that 
        person in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
        available to make the determination.
          (4) Notification.--Not later than 5 business days 
        after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
        respect to covered merchandise, the Commissioner--
                  (A) shall provide to each person that filed 
                an allegation under paragraph (2) of subsection 
                (b) that resulted in the initiation of an 
                investigation under paragraph (1) of that 
                subsection with respect to such covered 
                merchandise a notification of the determination 
                and may, in addition, include an explanation of 
                the basis for the determination; and
                  (B) may provide to importers, in such manner 
                as the Commissioner determines appropriate, 
                information discovered in the investigation 
                that the Commissioner determines will help 
                educate importers with respect to importing 
                merchandise into the customs territory of the 
                United States in accordance with all applicable 
                laws and regulations.
    (d) Effect of Determinations.--
          (1) In general.--If the Commissioner makes a 
        determination under subsection (c) that covered 
        merchandise was entered into the customs territory of 
        the United States through evasion, the Commissioner 
        shall--
                  (A)(i) suspend the liquidation of 
                unliquidated entries of such covered 
                merchandise that are subject to the 
                determination and that enter on or after the 
                date of the initiation of the investigation 
                under subsection (b) with respect to such 
                covered merchandise and on or before the date 
                of the determination; or
                  (ii) if the Commissioner has already 
                suspended the liquidation of such entries 
                pursuant to subsection (e)(1), continue to 
                suspend the liquidation of such entries;
                  (B) pursuant to the Commissioner's authority 
                under section 504(b)--
                          (i) extend the period for liquidating 
                        unliquidated entries of such covered 
                        merchandise that are subject to the 
                        determination and that entered before 
                        the date of the initiation of the 
                        investigation; or
                          (ii) if the Commissioner has already 
                        extended the period for liquidating 
                        such entries pursuant to subsection 
                        (e)(1), continue to extend the period 
                        for liquidating such entries;
                  (C) notify the administering authority of the 
                determination and request that the 
                administering authority--
                          (i) identify the applicable 
                        antidumping or countervailing duty 
                        assessment rates for entries described 
                        in subparagraphs (A) and (B); or
                          (ii) if no such assessment rate for 
                        such an entry is available at the time, 
                        identify the applicable cash deposit 
                        rate to be applied to the entry, with 
                        the applicable antidumping or 
                        countervailing duty assessment rate to 
                        be provided as soon as that rate 
                        becomes available;
                  (D) require the posting of cash deposits and 
                assess duties on entries described in 
                subparagraphs (A) and (B) in accordance with 
                the instructions received from the 
                administering authority under paragraph (2); 
                and
                  (E) take such additional enforcement measures 
                as the Commissioner determines appropriate, 
                such as--
                          (i) initiating proceedings under 
                        section 592 or 596;
                          (ii) implementing, in consultation 
                        with the relevant Federal agencies, 
                        rule sets or modifications to rules 
                        sets for identifying, particularly 
                        through the Automated Targeting System 
                        and the Automated Commercial 
                        Environment, importers, other parties, 
                        and merchandise that may be associated 
                        with evasion;
                          (iii) requiring, with respect to 
                        merchandise for which the importer has 
                        repeatedly provided incomplete or 
                        erroneous entry summary information in 
                        connection with determinations of 
                        evasion, the importer to deposit 
                        estimated duties at the time of entry; 
                        and
                          (iv) referring the record in whole or 
                        in part to U.S. Immigration and Customs 
                        Enforcement for civil or criminal 
                        investigation.
          (2) Cooperation of administering authority.--
                  (A) In general.--Upon receiving a 
                notification from the Commissioner under 
                paragraph (1)(C), the administering authority 
                shall promptly provide to the Commissioner the 
                applicable cash deposit rates and antidumping 
                or countervailing duty assessment rates and any 
                necessary liquidation instructions.
                  (B) Special rule for cases in which the 
                producer or exporter is unknown.--If the 
                Commissioner and the administering authority 
                are unable to determine the producer or 
                exporter of the merchandise with respect to 
                which a notification is made under paragraph 
                (1)(C), the administering authority shall 
                identify, as the applicable cash deposit rate 
                or antidumping or countervailing duty 
                assessment rate, the cash deposit or duty (as 
                the case may be) in the highest amount 
                applicable to any producer or exporter, 
                including the ``all-others'' rate of the 
                merchandise subject to an antidumping order or 
                countervailing duty order under section 736 or 
                706, respectively, or a finding issued under 
                the Antidumping Act, 1921, or any 
                administrative review conducted under section 
                751.
    (e) Interim Measures.--Not later than 90 calendar days 
after initiating an investigation under subsection (b) with 
respect to covered merchandise, the Commissioner shall decide 
based on the investigation if there is a reasonable suspicion 
that such covered merchandise was entered into the customs 
territory of the United States through evasion and, if the 
Commissioner decides there is such a reasonable suspicion, the 
Commissioner shall--
          (1) suspend the liquidation of each unliquidated 
        entry of such covered merchandise that entered on or 
        after the date of the initiation of the investigation;
          (2) pursuant to the Commissioner's authority under 
        section 504(b), extend the period for liquidating each 
        unliquidated entry of such covered merchandise that 
        entered before the date of the initiation of the 
        investigation; and
          (3) pursuant to the Commissioner's authority under 
        section 623, take such additional measures as the 
        Commissioner determines necessary to protect the 
        revenue of the United States, including requiring a 
        single transaction bond or additional security or the 
        posting of a cash deposit with respect to such covered 
        merchandise.
    (f) Administrative Review.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 30 business days 
        after the Commissioner makes a determination under 
        subsection (c) with respect to whether covered 
        merchandise was entered into the customs territory of 
        the United States through evasion, a person determined 
        to have entered such covered merchandise through 
        evasion or a person that filed an allegation under 
        paragraph (2) of subsection (b) that resulted in the 
        initiation of an investigation under paragraph (1) of 
        that subsection with respect to such covered 
        merchandise may file an appeal with the Commissioner 
        for de novo review of the determination.
          (2) Timeline for review.--Not later than 60 business 
        days after an appeal of a determination is filed under 
        paragraph (1), the Commissioner shall complete the 
        review of the determination.
    (g) Judicial Review.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 30 business days 
        after the Commissioner completes a review under 
        subsection (f) of a determination under subsection (c) 
        with respect to whether covered merchandise was entered 
        into the customs territory of the United States through 
        evasion, a person determined to have entered such 
        covered merchandise through evasion or a person that 
        filed an allegation under paragraph (2) of subsection 
        (b) that resulted in the initiation of an investigation 
        under paragraph (1) of that subsection with respect to 
        such covered merchandise may commence a civil action in 
        the United States Court of International Trade by 
        filing concurrently a summons and complaint contesting 
        any factual findings or legal conclusions upon which 
        the determination is based.
          (2) Standard of review.--In a civil action under this 
        subsection, the court shall hold unlawful any 
        determination, finding, or conclusion found to be 
        arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
        otherwise not in accordance with law.
    (h) Rule of Construction With Respect to Other Civil and 
Criminal Proceedings and Investigations.--No determination 
under subsection (c) or action taken by the Commissioner 
pursuant to this section shall be construed to limit the 
authority to carry out, or the scope of, any other proceeding 
or investigation pursuant to any other provision of Federal or 
State law, including sections 592 and 596.
    (i) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1581(c) of title 28, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or 517'' after 
``516A''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  

```