The 2012 amendments to the CVD statute, cited in this chapter, permits CVD duties on imports from NME countries retroactively to 2006. Wireking, an affected importer, argued that this violated the Ex Post Facto provisions of the Constitution, prohibiting penalties from being imposed retroactively. Was the statute constitutional? Does the CVD statute creates a punitive or civil remedy? What was the intent of Congress: to impose punishment, or at least to impose highly punitive measures, or did Congress intend a civil regulatory scheme? Are the CV duties paid to the government or to the person harmed? Who does the CVD statute really protect? For your answer, see, Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., 745 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and the cases cited therein. See also, GPX International Tire Corp. v. U.S., 893 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (2013).