- with readers working within the Property industries
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
Quick Summary: On April 24, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade did something importers rarely see – it stepped in mid-investigation and blocked U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from enforcing interim measures in an Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) evasion case. The measures had saddled the importer, ICON EV LLC, with a combined antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) cash-deposit rate of 519.23% and a “live entry” requirement that, on the company’s evidence, would have pushed it into bankruptcy within a month. The decision, ICON EV LLC v. United States, Slip Op. 26-42, is a meaningful crack in what has felt like an impenetrable EAPA enforcement wall, and it offers a roadmap for importers caught in the same trap.
What is an EAPA evasion investigation?
The Enforce and Protect Act gives CBP a fast, powerful tool to police the evasion of AD/CVD orders. When a competitor or a domestic industry coalition files a “reasonable allegation” that an importer is dodging duties through transshipment, misclassification, undervaluation, or other schemes, CBP must open an investigation within 15 business days and issue a final determination within 300 days.
What many importers do not realize is that within 90 days of opening the investigation, CBP must impose “interim measures” if it forms a “reasonable suspicion” of evasion. Those measures can include suspending or extending liquidation of entries, requiring “live entry” (full documentation and duty payment before goods are released), and imposing AD/CVD cash-deposit rates. And critically, the statute does not require CBP to give the importer notice or a chance to respond before those interim measures hit. An importer can learn it is under investigation only when the financial hammer has already fallen.
That structure is exactly what made the ICON EV case so consequential.
What happened in ICON EV v. United States?
ICON EV imports proprietary electric golf carts. In August 2025, the Commerce Department issued AD/CVD orders on certain low-speed personal transportation vehicles (LSPTVs) from China. A domestic manufacturer coalition then alleged that ICON was evading those orders two ways: by breaking vehicles down into separately shipped parts to sidestep the order’s scope, and by routing goods through Vietnam to disguise Chinese origin.
CBP opened an EAPA investigation in December 2025. By April 2026, it had found “reasonable suspicion” of evasion and imposed interim measures, including the 519.23% combined AD/CVD cash-deposit rate (the punitive “all others” China rate) plus a live-entry requirement on all of ICON’s and a related importer’s golf cart shipments.
ICON’s response was not to wait out the 300-day investigation. It went straight to court, arguing that CBP had violated its Fifth Amendment due process rights by imposing crushing interim measures with no notice and no meaningful opportunity to be heard. It asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The court granted both.
The two points that matter for importers
- You may be able to get into court before the final determination
CBP’s first line of defense was jurisdictional. It argued the Court of International Trade had no power to hear the case yet — that the only path to judicial review runs through 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) after a final evasion determination, which could be a year or more away.
The court disagreed, and the reasoning is the takeaway. It invoked its residual “(i)” jurisdiction because waiting for the normal review channel would be “manifestly inadequate” where the importer had shown a real possibility of bankruptcy within the month.
Put plainly: an importer “should not be driven to extinction while waiting for judicial review of a final determination when the interim measures — not the final determination — have caused its injury.” The court was also careful to distinguish a challenge to the interim measures themselves (potentially reviewable now) from a challenge to the merits of the evasion case (which must wait).
This is the doorway. It is narrow, and it turns heavily on documented, imminent, existential financial harm — but it is open.
- Importers have real due process rights in EAPA cases
On the merits, the court found ICON likely to win its due process claim. Building on recent precedent (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States and Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States), it confirmed that an importer has a procedural due process right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and that an importer has a legitimate property interest in the proper assessment of duties on goods it has already imported, even though there is no constitutional right to future trade.
Two points drew the court’s particular attention. First, CBP built its “reasonable suspicion” largely on ICON’s answers to information requests sent before the investigation even began, without ever giving ICON a chance to supplement or explain. Second, the court openly questioned whether CBP had read the scope of its own AD/CVD orders correctly, noting that the orders plainly exclude parts shipped on a separate bill of lading from a rolling chassis, and that “the government has failed to adequately explain” why ICON’s separately shipped parts would be covered at all.
After finding that all four preliminary-injunction factors – likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest – weighed in ICON’s favor, the court granted the injunction..
Can you challenge CBP interim measures before a final determination?
The realistic answer for importers is this: a pre-determination challenge is the exception, not the rule. Courts will not entertain it simply because the duties are large or the process is slow; “delays inherent in the statutory process” are not enough. What moved this court was a specific, evidence-backed showing that the interim measures, standing alone, would destroy the company before it could ever reach the normal review channel, paired with a constitutional (due process), rather than merits-based, theory.
If you can document that combination, the courthouse door may be open. If you cannot, the statutory process is still your path, which is exactly why how you handle the early stages matters so much.
What should an importer do when CBP comes knocking?
The lesson of ICON EV is not “sue CBP.” It is that the moves you make early shape every option you have later. Practical steps:
- Treat a Customs Form 28 (CF-28) Request for Information as the high-stakes document it is. In ICON EV, CBP built its reasonable-suspicion finding largely on the importer’s pre-investigation CF-28 responses. An incomplete or careless response can become the foundation of an evasion case against you. Get counsel involved before you answer.
- Know your AD/CVD order scope. The court’s skepticism here turned on the precise scope language of the LSPTV orders. Whether your parts, subassemblies, or finished goods fall inside or outside an order is a legal question with enormous financial consequences, don’t leave it to assumption.
- Document your supply chain and country of origin now, not later. Transshipment allegations (here, routing through Vietnam) are among the most common EAPA triggers. Origin verifications, factory records, and bills of lading are your defense.
- Move fast if interim measures threaten your survival. ICON EV worked because the company acted immediately and came to court with detailed financial declarations proving imminent bankruptcy. Speed and evidence were everything.
Why this matters now
CBP’s enforcement posture has only sharpened in 2026. The administration’s June 3, 2026 Executive Order on customs enforcement, the expanding use of the False Claims Act against importers, and the stand-up of a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force all point the same direction: more investigations, higher penalties, and less room for error. EAPA evasion cases sit right at the center of that trend.
ICON EV does not make EAPA defensible by litigation alone but it confirms that importers have constitutional rights inside these proceedings and a narrow but real path to court when interim measures threaten to end the business before it can defend itself. The importers who fare best will be the ones who build their record early, understand their exposure before CBP does, and have experienced trade counsel in the room from the first CF-28.
How Diaz Trade Law Can Help
Diaz Trade Law represents importers through every stage of a CBP enforcement matter — responding to CF-28 Requests for Information and CF-29 Notices of Action, defending AD/CVD evasion and EAPA investigations, challenging interim measures, filing prior disclosures, and litigating before the U.S. Court of International Trade. If you have received a CF-28, an EAPA notice, or interim measures — or you want to assess your exposure before CBP does.
Learn more:
- President Trump Orders Sweeping Customs Enforcement Overhaul: Importer Eligibility, Bonds, Penalties, and Foreign IORs Face Major Changes
- Webinar: Basics on AD/CVD
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]