Waaree Energies544277Government probe

US CBP affirms evasion finding on limited subset of historical entries; remedies being evaluated

CBP has affirmed its evasion finding on a limited subset of the company's historical US entries.

By ScoutQuest · Mon 2 Nov 2026, 11:21 PM IST · 3 min read

Decision date: October 29, 2026
Judicial review window: thirty (30) U.S. business days
Exposure accounting: already provided for under Ind AS 37

What the U.S. authority has decided

U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings has issued a Final Administrative Decision dated October 29, 2026 in EAPA Consolidated Case No. 8163. It affirms the earlier evasion determination of June 23, 2026 with respect to the subset of entries that the company had challenged.

The review was confined to the one issue the company raised: whether a subset of entries originally imported into the United States during 2024 had been entered before the U.S. Department of Commerce's preliminary affirmative determinations in the antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) investigations on solar cells from Vietnam, namely October 4, 2024 for CVD and December 4, 2024 for AD, and were therefore not subject to AD/CVD cash deposits at the time of entry.

The authority noted, in passing observations, that the company had not substantiated that the time of entry of these entries preceded the effective dates of the preliminary determinations.
It ultimately concluded that an entry-by-entry determination of duty liability is not the subject of an EAPA administrative review.
It stated that the appropriate route to challenge the assessment of duties on an entry-specific basis is a protest once the evasion determination is complete.

What was found

The authority confirmed the affirmative evasion finding, noting that a limited subset of historical entries contained merchandise covered by the Vietnam circumvention determination and the AD/CVD orders on solar cells from Vietnam, and that these entries were shared as consumption entries (entry type "01") without the applicable AD/CVD case numbers, which it treated as material false statements or omissions for the purposes of the EAPA statute. The applicable AD/CVD cash deposits and duties were consequently not paid at the time of entry.

The company maintains that these entries were originally entered before AD/CVD liability attached under the relevant orders, and says it will continue to pursue this position through the remedies available to it.

What the decision does not change

The decision does not expand the scope of the June 23 Determination, which remains limited to a small subset of historical entries. The company states the decision does not disturb the findings summarised in its earlier intimation, including that the company did not export to the United States any solar modules manufactured using Chinese-origin solar cells.

Financial read-across

If sustained following the company's remaining remedies, the decision may result in CBP assessing AD/CVD duties, together with interest, at the applicable rates on the limited subset of subject entries covered by the review request.
It may also require additional customs bonds or cash deposits in the United States.
The potential exposure on these entries has been assessed with U.S. trade counsel and is already reflected in the financial statements in accordance with Ind AS 37; the decision does not alter that assessment.
The matter is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the overall operations or financial position of the company.
No impact is stated on manufacturing operations, business continuity or the ability to serve customers in the United States or elsewhere.

Next steps and remedies

The decision is not a final adjudication of the matter. The company is entitled to seek judicial review before the U.S. Court of International Trade within thirty (30) U.S. business days of the decision, and independently retains the right to protest any entry-specific assessment of duties. The company says it is evaluating these remedies with its U.S. trade counsel and intends to take all appropriate steps to protect its interests.

The decision records that it does not constitute a ruling on the matter concerned, that it does not preclude CBP or other agencies from pursuing additional enforcement actions or penalties, and that it is subject to judicial review.

How to read this

This is an update on an ongoing U.S. trade-compliance matter. The adverse finding has been affirmed at the administrative-review stage, while the company points to a limited scope, an exposure already provided for in its accounts, and the option of further legal challenge. The company has said it will keep the exchanges informed of material developments.

Also from Waaree Energies