EAPA Investigation: How Duty Evasion Enforcement Works

Key Points

• EAPA, the Enforce and Protect Act, is codified at 19 U.S.C. 1517 and gives CBP a formal, time-bound process for investigating allegations of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion.
• Any interested party, including a domestic producer, trade association, or foreign manufacturer, can file an allegation; CBP must determine within 15 business days whether to initiate a formal investigation.
• Once an investigation opens, CBP can impose interim measures, such as suspension of liquidation and enhanced examination of entries, within 90 calendar days of initiation.
• Importers who do not cooperate or who fail to provide requested records risk an adverse inference finding, meaning CBP may assume the worst about their entries.
• A finding of evasion triggers retroactive reliquidation of entries and potential referral for additional enforcement action, including penalties.

On this page

1. What EAPA is and why it matters
2. Who can file an allegation and what it must contain
3. The investigation timeline and interim measures
4. Adverse inferences and what triggers them
5. Importer participation rights and the administrative record
6. Consequences of an evasion finding
7. What importers should do
8. Key references

An EAPA investigation is a formal administrative proceeding in which U.S. Customs and Border Protection determines whether an importer has evaded antidumping or countervailing duty orders by misrepresenting the origin, classification, or nature of imported merchandise. Investigations are governed by 19 U.S.C. 1517 and can result in retroactive duty assessment, suspension of imports, and referral for civil or criminal penalties. Understanding the process is essential for any importer whose supply chain touches an AD/CVD order.

The links in this article go to the primary documents: the statutes, Federal Register notices, and official agency pages themselves. Read the source.

What EAPA is and why it matters

Before EAPA, domestic producers had limited formal recourse when they believed competitors were circumventing AD/CVD orders. The Enforce and Protect Act, enacted as part of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 and codified at 19 U.S.C. 1517, created a structured, transparent process with statutory deadlines, participation rights, and defined consequences.

Evasion under the statute means the entry of covered merchandise into U.S. commerce through material and false statements, acts, or omissions that result in the reduction or avoidance of applicable AD or CVD duties. Common schemes include transshipment through third countries, false country-of-origin declarations, mislabeling, and misclassification of merchandise to avoid an order's scope.

For importers working in industries where AD/CVD orders are common, such as steel, aluminum, solar, paper, and seafood, EAPA exposure is a real operational risk. An allegation alone can trigger interim measures that disrupt cash flow and supply chains months before any final determination. See our related guide on AD/CVD Cash Deposit vs Final Duty for background on how the retrospective duty system interacts with evasion enforcement.

Who can file an allegation and what it must contain

Under 19 U.S.C. 1517(b), an allegation may be filed by an "interested party," a term that includes domestic producers of like merchandise, certified unions or worker groups, trade associations, and in some cases foreign manufacturers or exporters subject to an order.

Required elements

An allegation must identify:

• The covered merchandise and the specific AD/CVD order or orders at issue
• The name of the importer alleged to be evading duties
• A description of the alleged evasion scheme
• Information reasonably available to the alleger supporting the claim

CBP regulations implementing EAPA are found in 19 C.F.R. Part 165. That part sets out the content requirements for allegations, the form of submissions, and the procedures for the investigative record.

CBP's initiation decision

After receiving an allegation, CBP has 15 business days to determine whether the allegation contains sufficient allegations of evasion to initiate a formal investigation. If CBP initiates, it notifies the alleger and the alleged evader. If it declines, the alleger may request an administrative review of that decision.

The investigation timeline and interim measures

The statute imposes tight deadlines once an investigation opens.

Key deadlines

• 90 calendar days from initiation: CBP may impose interim measures if it determines there is a reasonable suspicion of evasion.
• 300 calendar days from initiation: CBP must issue its initial determination on evasion (extendable by 60 days for complex cases).
• After the initial determination: Parties may request an administrative review by CBP's Office of Trade, which must issue a final determination within 60 days of the request (extendable by 60 additional days).

What interim measures look like

Under 19 U.S.C. 1517(e), interim measures may include:

• Suspension of liquidation of some or all of the importer's entries of covered merchandise
• Extension of the period for examining entries
• Requiring single-transaction bonds or additional security

Interim measures are not a finding of evasion. They are a protective hold while the investigation proceeds. However, they are operationally significant: suspended liquidation means duties owed are not yet final, and entries remain open to retroactive reliquidation at higher rates if evasion is ultimately found.

Adverse inferences and what triggers them

One of EAPA's most consequential provisions is the adverse inference rule at 19 U.S.C. 1517(c)(3). If CBP finds that an importer, exporter, or other party has not cooperated by failing to provide requested information in a timely manner, CBP may use an adverse inference in making its determination.

What an adverse inference means in practice

An adverse inference allows CBP to assume that the information the non-cooperating party failed to provide would have been unfavorable to that party. In a duty-evasion context, this means CBP can conclude that entries were evading AD/CVD duties even without direct evidence of the scheme, simply because the importer did not respond adequately to CBP's requests for records.

Common triggers

• Failure to respond to a CBP questionnaire within the stated deadline
• Providing incomplete, inaccurate, or internally inconsistent documentation
• Refusing to allow a verification visit or on-site inspection
• Submitting records in formats that cannot be reviewed or verified

The adverse inference standard under EAPA is analogous to, but distinct from, the "facts available" standard used by the Department of Commerce in AD/CVD proceedings. Importers should not assume that Commerce cooperation excuses CBP non-cooperation, or vice versa.

Importer participation rights and the administrative record

EAPA is not a unilateral process. The statute and 19 C.F.R. Part 165 give importers meaningful procedural rights.

Notice and opportunity to respond

Once CBP initiates an investigation, the alleged evader must be notified. The importer then has the right to submit information and argument to CBP during the investigation. This includes responding to questionnaires, submitting documentary evidence, and providing written argument on legal and factual issues.

Access to the administrative record

Parties have a right to review the non-confidential portions of the administrative record. Business confidential information submitted by the alleger may be protected, but a public summary must be provided. Importers should carefully review what the alleger has submitted, because the allegation framing often shapes the scope of CBP's inquiry.

Administrative review and judicial appeal

After CBP's initial determination, parties may request an administrative review by CBP's Office of Trade. Following the final administrative determination, parties may appeal to the U.S. Court of International Trade. The judicial review standard focuses on whether CBP's determination is supported by substantial evidence and is otherwise in accordance with law.

Understanding whether the merchandise at issue is actually within the scope of the relevant AD/CVD order is a threshold question in any EAPA proceeding. Our guide on AD/CVD Scope Rulings explains how to assess scope coverage before an investigation reaches that question.

Consequences of an evasion finding

A final finding of evasion under 19 U.S.C. 1517(c) carries serious consequences that extend well beyond paying the evaded duties.

Retroactive reliquidation

CBP must suspend liquidation of all unliquidated entries of covered merchandise that entered during the period of investigation. Once evasion is found, those entries are reliquidated at the applicable AD/CVD rates, including any retroactive cash deposit adjustments. Importers may owe substantial sums on entries that were originally liquidated at lower or zero duty rates.

Enhanced enforcement going forward

CBP may apply additional scrutiny to future entries from the same importer, including requiring enhanced bonding, single-transaction bonds, or prior disclosure requirements. The importer's Customs compliance profile is affected, which can influence CBP's risk assessment for other audits and examinations.

Referral for penalties

A finding of evasion may be referred to CBP's penalty office for action under the customs fraud and negligence statutes. It may also be referred to the Department of Justice for potential criminal investigation where willful conduct is apparent. These are separate proceedings from the EAPA investigation itself, but the EAPA record can serve as evidentiary foundation for them.

What importers should do

• Audit your supply chain now. Identify every supplier whose goods are covered by an active AD/CVD order. Verify country-of-origin documentation, production records, and shipping routes before an allegation is filed, not after.
• Respond to every CBP request completely and on time. If CBP sends a questionnaire, missing the deadline or providing incomplete records is the single fastest path to an adverse inference finding. Engage trade counsel and gather records immediately.
• Build and preserve your administrative record. Document every step of your due diligence: supplier audits, certificates of origin, mill certificates, production records, and commercial invoices. A well-documented record is your primary defense in both the investigation and any subsequent judicial review.
• Monitor the Federal Register and CBP CSMS for new EAPA initiations. CBP publishes EAPA initiation notices at federalregister.gov and issues guidance through its CSMS messaging system. If your product category or a supplier's country appears in a new initiation, assess your exposure before interim measures are imposed.

Key references

• 19 U.S.C. 1517 - The Enforce and Protect Act: the full statutory text governing EAPA investigations, interim measures, adverse inferences, and judicial review.
• 19 C.F.R. Part 165 - CBP's EAPA implementing regulations: allegation requirements, investigation procedures, and party submission rules.
• CBP.gov - U.S. Customs and Border Protection: official guidance, CSMS messages, and the EAPA section of the Office of Trade.
• Federal Register - Source for EAPA initiation notices, interim measure notices, and final determination publications.