Advertisement

April 23, 2014

U.S. Whistleblower Recovers Large Sum from Antidumping Duty Evasion

The False Claims Act may furnish a powerful new tool for U.S. producers that believe their foreign competitors are evading antidumping/countervailing duty or other customs duties by misclassifying imports or misrepresenting their valuation or origin.

Recent years have seen a rise in the number of actions brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) (31 USC 3729) based on U.S. customs violations, coinciding with increased criminalization of such violations.  In 2012 FCA actions extended further into the trade area when the president of a U.S. company successfully brought a whistleblower lawsuit against a Japan-based competitor, Toyo Ink SC Holdings Co. Ltd and its affiliates (Toyo), for evading duties on imports subject to antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders.  The Toyo case should prompt renewed focus on import/export compliance requirements for any business affected directly or indirectly by U.S. AD/CVD issues.

Under the FCA, any person who knowingly submits a false or fraudulent claim to the U.S. government for payment or approval may be liable for a civil penalty of up to $11,000 for each claim, plus three times the amount of the damages sustained by the U.S. government, including attorneys’ fees.  The FCA authorizes private citizens to sue on behalf of the United States and to receive between 15 and 30 percent of any recovery.  A private FCA plaintiff typically seeks to have the U.S. government intervene in the action, which the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to do in the Toyo case.  In January 2013, Toyo agreed to pay $45 million, plus interest, to settle allegations that it violated the FCA by knowingly failing to pay AD and CVD duties.  The U.S. company president who originally brought the case will now personally receive nearly $8 million as his share under the FCA.

The U.S. Department of Commerce assesses AD and CVD duties following investigations to remedy unfair pricing and government subsidies that benefit specified imported goods.  The duties are collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  The FCA suit against Toyo alleged that Toyo avoided paying AD and CVD duties on imports of the colorant carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP-23) by improperly claiming Japan and Mexico as the countries of origin when the product was actually sourced in China and India.  Imports of CVP-23 from China and India (but not from Japan or Mexico) have been subject to AD/CVD duties since 2004.  Although Toyo’s imported CVP-23 underwent a finishing process in Japan and Mexico, this process was insufficient to constitute a “substantial transformation” under U.S. customs rules to allow Japan or Mexico to be claimed as the country of origin of the imports.

U.S. AD/CVD petitioners often complain that CBP does not do enough to police imports covered by AD/CVD orders and to collect duties.  Further, since repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act in 2005, the law does not provide for U.S. producers to receive any AD/CVD duties collected by the U.S. government.  The Toyo case should therefore be of interest to any business affected by an AD/CVD action and, more broadly, to any company with U.S. import/export operations.  Notably, the “false claim” alleged in this case did not involve any contracts with the U.S. government (as in the more typical case) but was based entirely on alleged misstatements made on import documentation filed with CBP.  The FCA, as used in the Toyo case, may furnish a powerful new tool for U.S. producers that believe their foreign competitors or U.S. importers are evading duties by misclassifying imports or misrepresenting their valuation or origin.

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Partner

David J. Levine is a partner in the International Trade Practice of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  David practices before international trade organizations, federal agencies and courts regarding international trade and related regulatory matters. 

202-756-8153

About the Author

Partner

Raymond Paretzky is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm's Washington, D.C., office. He focuses his practice on counseling clients on import relief measures, customs and export controls.

202 756 8619

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.