19 C.F.R. § 165.6

Adverse inferences

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general. If the party to the investigation that filed an allegation, the importer, or the foreign producer or exporter of the covered merchandise fails to cooperate and comply to the best of its ability with a request for information made by CBP, CBP may apply an inference adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available to make the determination as to evasion pursuant to § 165.27 and subpart D of this part.

(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 orders, or any other available information on the administrative record.

(c) Application. An adverse inference described in this section may be used with respect to the importer of the covered merchandise, or the foreign producer or exporter of the covered merchandise without regard to whether another party involved in the same transaction or transactions under examination has provided the information sought by CBP, such as import or export documentation.

[81 FR 56482, Aug. 22, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 19259, Mar. 18, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2023–2025 · leading case: Aspects Furniture Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 2023 CIT 123 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
Aspects Furniture Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 2023 CIT 123 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). “§ 1517 (c)(3)(A); 19 C.F.R. § 165.6 . On remand, Customs determined that Aspects failed to cooperate to the best of its ability with respect to Customs’ request for information during the on-site verification because on two occasions Aspects’ employees were observed deleting…”
Superior Com. Sols. LLC v. United States, 2025 CIT 147 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025). “19 C.F.R. § 165.6 (a). The Court concludes that Customs’ determination that Kales/Engga and Strry failed to cooperate and comply to the best of their ability with Customs’ requests for information in multiple instances is supported by substantial evidence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.