Application for Further Review of Protest No. 460124137941; Antidumping Duties; Non- Public Message; Xanthan Gum; A-570-985.

H345918 April 21, 2026 OT:RR:CTF:EPDR H345918 MY CATEGORY: ENTRY Center Director Pharmaceuticals, Health, and Chemicals Center for Excellence and Expertise One World Trade Center Suite 50.200 New York, NY 10007 RE: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 460124137941; Antidumping Duties; Non-Public Message; Xanthan Gum; A-570-985. Dear Center Director: This is in response to the Application for Further Review (AFR) of protest no. 460124137941, received by our office on November 15, 2024. Jebsen & Jessen Life Science, Inc. (Jebsen & Jessen) protests your office’s assessment of antidumping duties for entry nos. xxxxxxxx8904 and xxxxxxxx0223 at the country-wide rate applicable to certain xanthan gum from the People’s Republic of China (China) under case number A-570-985. See Xanthan Gum From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Recession of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Determination of No Shipments, 89 Fed. Reg. 8165 (Feb. 6, 2024) (Final Results). Jebsen & Jessen asserts that its entries of xanthan gum from China are instead subject to the company-specific rate accorded to articles exported by Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited, Langfang Meihua Biotechnology Co., Ltd., and Xinjian Meihua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. (collectively “Meihua”). We have considered the points raised by your office and the protestant. Our decision is set forth below. FACTS: On August 4 and 11, 2021, Jebsen & Jessen entered two shipments of xanthan gum from China. Xanthan gum from China was subject to an antidumping duty order. See Id.; Xanthan Gum From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 2 Value, 78 Fed. Reg. 33351 (June 4, 2013) (AD Order). The entries were a type “03,” applicable to formally entered goods which are subject to antidumping or countervailing duty orders. The entry summaries report Jebsen & Jessen as the importer of record. The Manufacturer Identification Code (MID) reported for the single line item of xanthan gum on each entry corresponds to one of the Meihua group companies, specifically Xinjian Meihua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. (Meihua Amino Acid). U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) suspended liquidation of the two entries on August 13 and 20, 2021, respectively, pursuant to the AD Order. On February 6, 2024, Commerce published its final results of the administrative review of the AD Order for the period July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022. See Final Results, 89 Fed. Reg. 8165 (Feb. 6, 2024). Pertinently, Commerce calculated a 20.63% dumping margin for Meihua as an exporter but clarified that it would “calculate importer-specific assessment rates for antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).” 89 Fed. Reg. 8166. Commerce then provided a detailed explanation as to how such importer-specific rates would be computed in various circumstances. Id. Commerce also clarified the circumstances in which entries of xanthan gum exported by Meihua would be subjected to a country-wide rate. Id. On February 6, 2024, Commerce lifted suspension of liquidation for entries of xanthan gum from China entered for consumption between July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022. See Final Results, 89 Fed. Reg. 8165. Subsequently, Commerce issued a non-public message instructing CBP to assess antidumping duties at the country-wide rate of 154.07% on all shipments of xanthan gum from China exported by Meihua that were NOT imported by four specifically named companies. Commerce Message No. 4080406 (March 20, 2024). Jebsen & Jessen was not one of these four named companies that were accorded importer-specific rates. Id. On May 23, 2024, CBP issued a Notice of Action (CBP Form 29) to Jebsen & Jessen, explaining that suspension of liquidation had lifted “[i]n accordance with the final results of administrative review (89 FR 8165, 02/06/2024) for antidumping proceeding A-570-985 . . . [n]otice of the lifting of suspension occurred on 02/06/2024.” CBP further explained that “Commerce issued non-public assessment instructions to CBP . . . [and these] instructions resulted in an antidumping [rate] increases” for both entries. CBP liquidated entry nos. xxxxxxxx8904 and xxxxxxxx0223 at the country-wide rate in accordance with Commerce’s non-public message on May 31, 2024. On September 4, 2024, Jebsen & Jessen submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain a copy of the non-public instructions issued by Commerce. Jebsen & Jessen was provided with a redacted copy of the instructions which did not list the four companies accorded importer-specific rates. On November 21, 2024, Jebsen & Jessen filed the protest at issue. Jebsen & Jessen does not contest that its entries are within the scope of the AD Order, nor the timeliness of liquidation – it only contests liquidation at the country-wide rate. To demonstrate eligibility for an importer-specific rate, specifically the 20.63% rate for Meihua listed in the Final Results, Jebsen & Jessen provided documentation evidencing that Meihua Amino Acid of the Meihua company group was the manufacturer and exporter of the imported xanthan gum. Among the documents provided are: an invoice, dated June 22, 2021, reflecting the sale between Jebsen & Jessen as the purchaser and Meihua Amino Acid as the seller; a packing 3 list, dated June 22, 2021, identifying Jebsen & Jessen as the receiving party and Meihua Amino Acid as the manufacturer; and, a certificate of origin for the subject articles, issued by the government of China on June 22, 2021, identifying Jebsen & Jessen as the consignee and Meihua Amino Acid as the exporter. Although Jebsen & Jessen maintains that it is eligible for an importer-specific rate, it acknowledges that Commerce issued instructions imposing a country-wide rate for entries of xanthan gum exported by Meihua with the exception of four named companies accorded importer-specific rates. As part of its protest argument, Jebsen & Jessen states that since it “cannot determine whether it is one of the four listed firms” eligible for an importer-specific rate, it therefore cannot determine whether CBP properly liquidated the entries in accordance with Commerce’s instructions. ISSUE: Whether CBP properly assessed antidumping duties on Jebsen & Jessen’s entries. LAW AND ANALYSIS: As an initial matter, we find that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(A), this protest was timely filed on November 15, 2024, within 180 days after the May 31, 2024, liquidation date. We also find that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a), a protestable issue was raised by challenging CBP’s decision regarding the assessment of antidumping duties. Finally, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b), we find that further review of this protest is warranted because it involves a question of fact which has not previously been ruled upon, specifically whether a company-specific or country-wide rate applied to entry nos. xxxxxxx8904 and xxxxxxx0223. CBP has a “statutory responsibility to fix the amount of duty owed on imported goods. As part of that responsibility, C[BP] is both empowered and obligated to determine . . . whether goods are subject to existing antidumping or countervailing duty orders.” Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 946 F.3d 1300, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted). In fulfilling this obligation, CBP assumes a ministerial role in liquidating entries subject to instructions received from Commerce. See Mitsubishi Elecs. Am., Inc. v. United States, 44 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Once Commerce instructs CBP to liquidate entries, “Customs merely follows Commerce’s instructions in assessing and collecting duties.” Id. CBP cannot “modify Commerce’s determinations, their underlying facts, or their enforcement.” Id. (citation omitted). At issue in this protest are the liquidation instructions for xanthan gum subject to the AD Order that were exported by Meihua. Jebsen & Jessen maintains that its entries of xanthan gum are eligible for a company-specific rate instead of the country-wide rate assessed by CBP. Jebsen & Jessen provided documentation such as a sales invoice and a packing list, demonstrating that the xanthan gum at issue was manufactured and exported by Meihua, as evidence that its entries were subject to the 20.63% rate listed in the Final Results for xanthan gum exported by Meihua during the relevant period of review. 89 Fed. Reg. 8166 (Feb. 6, 2024). 4 It is not disputed that Jebsen & Jessen’s entries of xanthan gum were manufactured and exported by Meihua. The non-public instructions issued by Commerce, on which CBP relied to liquidate the entries, specifically apply to shipments of xanthan gum “produced and exported by Meihua.” Commerce Message No. 4080406 (March 20, 2024). However, as Jebsen & Jessen acknowledges in its protest, these instructions required CBP to liquidate such entries at the country-wide rate of 154.07% for all but four companies that were accorded importer-specific rates. Id. Accordingly, when liquidating entry nos. xxxxxxxx8904 and xxxxxxxx0223, CBP looked to these non-public instructions to determine the appropriate rate to apply. CBP determined that Jebsen & Jessen is not one of the four companies accorded an importer-specific rate. As part of our office’s further review of this protest, we also examined these instructions and affirm that Jebsen & Jessen was not accorded an importer-specific rate. As the Court of International Trade has previously explained, “[i]n accordance with the Final Results of [an] administrative review, Commerce [may] issue[] non-public importer/customer-specific liquidation instructions to Customs.” Intercontinental Chems., LLC v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 3d 1232, 1236 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020). In such circumstances, once suspension of liquidation is lifted, CBP is obligated to liquidate at the applicable rate identified by Commerce in these non-public instructions. Commerce specifically “instruct[s] CBP to assess antidumping duties on [covered] merchandise through liquidation instructions. CBP’s role in th[is] process is ministerial, i.e., following Commerce’s instructions when assessing antidumping duties.” Northern Tool & Equip. Co. v. United States, Slip. Op. 14-00146 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 23, 2018) (citing Mitsubishi Elecs. Am., Inc., 44 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). If a company is not accorded a specific rate within a non-public message issued by Commerce, the company’s lack of notice regarding these company-specific rates does not preclude CBP from fulfilling it’s statutory obligation to liquidate in accordance with Commerce’s instructions. To illustrate, in Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) H270110, dated January 31, 2017, Commerce issued non-public instructions after publicly lifting suspension of liquidation through publication of a final administrative review. These instructions “established a PRC-wide rate for all [merchandise] exported by [a named company] during th[e applicable] period [of review], save for entries imported by or sold to two entities.” The importer of record looked to the rates publicly published in a prior review to contest CBP’s liquidation of the covered entries at the country-wide rate. CBP held that Commerce’s “non-public liquidation instructions supersede[d] the liquidation instructions contained within [a] prior administrative review” and were controlling. Similarly, here, the non-public instructions establishing the applicable rate for entries of xanthan gum exported by Meihua supersede any previously listed rates in the Final Results which lifted suspension of liquidation for entry nos. xxxxxxxx8904 and xxxxxxxx0223 – to include the 20.63% rate listed for exports by Meihua before Commerce completed its importer-specific rate calculations. 89 Fed. Reg. 8166-8167 (Feb. 6, 2024). Consequently, we find that the non-public instructions issued by Commerce in Message No. 4080406, dated March 20, 2024, are controlling. As Jebsen & Jessen was not one of the four companies accorded an importer-specific rate in these non-public instructions, we further find that CBP properly liquidated Jebsen & Jessen’s entries at the country-wide rate of 154.07%. 5 HOLDING: CBP properly assessed antidumping duties on entry nos. xxxxxxx8904 and xxxxxxx0223. Therefore, this protest should be DENIED in full. You are instructed to notify the Protestant of this decision no later than sixty (60) days from the date of the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) at https://rulings.cbp.gov/ which can be found on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at http://www.cbp.gov and other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, Yuliya A. Gulis, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division