Trade Court Says CBP Legally Relied on Evidence of Document Destruction in EAPA Case
Statements from CBP employees that they witnessed the destruction of documents during a site visit as part of an Enforce and Protect Act investigation on importer Aspects Furniture International, as well as other discrepancies found in many of Aspects' entry documents, justified "wholesale adverse inferences against all" of the importers entries, the Court of International Trade ruled on Aug. 22.
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.
After holding out on reviewing the actual evasion decision in her first opinion, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that CBP supported its finding that Aspects evaded antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China. The judge looked through each of the 28 sample entries CBP considered during verification, finding that the importer entered covered merchandise via "material misrepresentations on entry documents that resulted in an avoidance of antidumping duties." The discrepancies included differing gross weight and quantity values between export forms and bills of lading, among other differences.
As part of the investigation, CBP cited statements from its employees claiming they saw documents being destroyed during site visits to Aspects Nantong and two of Aspects' Chinese suppliers, Nantong Funhuang Furniture Co. and Wuxi Yushea Furniture Co. The trade court previously remanded the reliance on these statements to review the "truthfulness, reasonableness, and credibility of the evidence" (see 2211290078).
CBP explained on remand that its employees are held to standards of conduct that require them to show the "highest standards of ethical and professional conduct to ensure efficient performance of government services." In response to the agency's reliance on these statements, Aspects said the only type of documents identified were container loading plans, which are not relevant to the proceeding.
Choe-Groves said the importer was wrong to claim these were the only types of documents CBP witnessed being destroyed, since the CBP employees also saw a chat record with an employee of Wuxi Yushea being destroyed by an employee after the employee was asked to produce a sample container loading spreadsheet. The judge noted that since the evasion theory alleges that Wuxi Yushea commingled goods from multiple producers while hiding the actual manufacturer and altering the descriptions of goods on entry documents and container loading plans, this conversation is relevant to the case. The court said the evidence of document destruction was relevant to the evasion determination and the "question of whether Aspects cooperated to the best of its ability."
Aspects also claimed that CBP did not share the verification report, including the document destruction allegations, for over a year after it was complete, evidencing CBP's bid to hide the evidence and impair the prospect of rebuttal. Choe-Groves ruled that the importer cited no authority that would require CBP to issue the verification report "more promptly" or give the company a chance to correct its conduct during verification.
The importer also challenged the use of adverse inferences against all its entries, claiming that CBP illegally included two of its product categories in the EAPA case since both were excluded by the Commerce Department in a scope referral. Given the discrepancies in Aspects' entry documents and the document destruction claims, CBP said the importer gave unreliable product descriptions and failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, warranting adverse inferences. The judge upheld this as reasonable.
Elsewhere in the opinion, Choe-Groves sustained CBP's exclusion of Aspects' entries from the EAPA case brought in before the EAPA statute was entered into force. The judge also granted Aspects' request to withdraw its claims against the lack of adequate public summaries of its confidential information after the agency reopened the record and allowed revised public versions of certain forms to be submitted.
(Aspects Furniture International v. United States, Slip Op. 23-123, CIT # 20-03824, dated 08/22/23; Judge: Jennifer Choe-Groves; Attorneys: Robert Snyder of Law Offices of Robert W. Snyder for plaintiff Aspects Furniture; Claudia Burke for defendant U.S. government)