Zinus, Inc. v. United States, 1:23-cv-00272

CBP initially found Zinus, Inc. had evaded the antidumping duty (AD) order on wooden bedroom furniture (WBF) from China by importing metal and wood platform beds claimed to be outside the AD order’s scope.
The Department of Commerce issued a scope ruling in January 2024, determining that seven Zinus models (metal and wood platform beds) were not covered by the AD order because wood use was not extensive or integral.
After this scope ruling became final and unappealable (following dismissal of a challenge by industry competitor CVB), the Court granted a voluntary remand to CBP for reconsideration.
On remand, CBP reopened the record, provided parties access to previously unavailable confidential information, and sought input from Zinus and CVB.
CBP concluded, in view of the Commerce scope ruling and the record, that none of the bed models at issue (including those not individually named in Commerce’s ruling but similar in construction) were covered merchandise.
CBP reversed its previous evasion determination and finding that Zinus had not violated the EAPA.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether Zinus’s imported metal/wood platform beds are covered by the AD order	Zinus argued the beds are outside the AD order’s scope based on Commerce’s recent ruling	CBP initially claimed the beds’ wood components were sufficiently extensive/integral to fall under the AD order	Not covered; Commerce’s ruling controls—beds outside the AD order’s scope
Whether Zinus engaged in evasion under the EAPA by misclassifying its imports	Zinus argued there was no evasion as duties did not apply to these beds	CBP originally asserted Zinus omitted/misclassified “covered merchandise,” resulting in unpaid duties	No evasion; without covered merchandise, EAPA is not violated
Whether procedural due process was satisfied when Zinus was denied access to confidential information during investigation	Zinus raised initial objections regarding access	CBP remedied process on remand by reopening record and providing APO access	Any procedural defect cured; no prejudice remains
Whether the administrative record supported the original finding of evasion	Zinus argued the evidence showed models were out-of-scope and similar to those Commerce excluded	CBP originally found evidence supported beds’ inclusion; changed position after scope ruling	Record now supports the beds being out-of-scope; finding of evasion reversed

No cases with official reporter citations are cited in this opinion; all authority referenced is administrative, statutory, or Federal Register notices.