Apparel Importer's Statement of Material Facts Riddled With CIT Rules Violations, DOJ Says
Apparel importer Imperia Trading's statement of material facts is filled with statements devoid of evidence and thus contrary to the rules of the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice argued in a May 5 motion to strike parts of Imperia's evidence from the record. While conceding such requests are rarely granted, DOJ asked the court to strike multiple paragraphs in the statement, saying they fail to cite any evidence, constitute legal arguments or conclusions of law, cite evidence that does not support the paragraph and rely on evidence containing untranslated foreign language.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
For instance, in its statement of material facts, Imperia says, "In its investigation Customs re-liquidated Imperia’s entries at the $54,723.50 value included on the invoice paid by Imperia to Team Energy," without citing any evidence on the record, DOJ said. In all, the agency moved to strike 16 different paragraphs for failing to cite any evidence, 15 paragraphs for constituting legal argument, parts of or all of 79 paragraphs for citing evidence that does not support the statement and 28 paragraphs for relying on evidence containing untranslated foreign language.
DOJ made the filing as part of a dispute over whether Imperia Trading can use the sale from a Hong Kong third party for "first sale" appraisement (see 2104300049). The agency recently moved for summary judgment in the case, arguing that a company must be able to prove that prices weren't distorted for transactions involving non-market economies when claiming first sale treatment (Imperia Trading, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 15-00142).
DOJ also moved to strike evidence from Raffi Shaya, a key witness in the case, saying he had only secondhand knowledge of certain events on the record. This reporting of secondhand knowledge constitutes inadmissible hearsay and runs contrary to CIT rules, DOJ said. Shaya's affirmation also lacks a signature and lacks the words "true and correct" as required by court rules, it said.