Aspects Furniture Int'l, Inc. v. United States

Slip Op. 23-123
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
ASPECTS FURNITURE
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Plaintiff,
Court No. 20-03824
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
OPINION
[Sustaining U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Final Remand Redetermination,
following an evasion determination under the Enforce and Protect Act.]
Dated: August 22, 2023
Robert W. Snyder and Laura A. Moya, Law Offices of Robert W. Snyder, of
Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff Aspects Furniture International, Inc.
Claudia Burke, Deputy Director, and Douglas G. Edelschick, Senior Trial Counsel,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of
Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. With them on the brief were
Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Patricia M.
McCarthy, Director. Of counsel on the brief was Tamari Lagvilava, Attorney,
Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Choe-Groves, Judge: This action arises out of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection’s (“Customs”) final determination of evasion of the Notice of Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Court No. 20-03824 Page 2
Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China
(“Order”), 70 Fed. Reg. 329 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 4, 2005), by Plaintiff
Aspects Furniture International, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Aspects”). Customs’ Final
Determination Aspects Furniture International, Inc. Enforce and Protect Act
(“EAPA”) Case No. 7189 (Sept. 24, 2020) (“Final Administrative Determination”
or “Final Admin. Determination”), PR 429.1 Before the Court is the Final Remand
Redetermination (“Remand Redetermination”), Final Remand Redetermination
EAPA Investigation No. 7189, ECF No. 36, which the Court ordered in Aspects
Furniture Int’l, Inc. v. United States (“Aspects I”), 46 CIT __, 607 F. Supp. 3d
1246 (2022). For the following reasons, the Court sustains Customs’ Remand
Redetermination.
BACKGROUND
The Court presumes familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
history of this case and recites the facts relevant to the Court's review of the
Remand Redetermination. See Aspects I, 46 CIT at __, 607 F. Supp. 3d. at 1251–
53.
1
Citations to the administrative record reflect the public record (“PR”),
confidential record (“CR”), and public remand record (“PRR”) document numbers
filed in this case, ECF Nos. 16, 17, 36-3, 39, 40.
Court No. 20-03824 Page 3
In Aspects I, the Court held in relevant part that Customs could not include
in its evasion investigation merchandise that entered prior to entry into force of the
Enforce and Protect Act (“EAPA”), 19 U.S.C. § 1517, or entries of non-covered
merchandise. Id. at __, 607 F. Supp. 3d. at 1257, 1269. The Court also held that
Customs failed to provide the parties to the investigation with required public
summaries of redacted information. Id. at __, 607 F. Supp. 3d. at 1273. The
evasion determination was remanded to Customs to address these issues. Id. at __,
607 F. Supp. 3d. at 1257, 1269, 1273, 1275. The Court suggested that Customs
might consider providing on remand a further explanation regarding the
truthfulness, reasonableness, or credibility of disputed evidence of document
destruction. Id. at __, 607 F. Supp. 3d. at 1260.
Subsequent to the Court’s issuance of Aspects I, Aspects moved to withdraw
and waive its arguments regarding the lack of public summaries and requested that
the Court partially vacate the portion of Aspects I regarding Customs’ failure to
provide public summaries. Pl.’s Unopposed Mot. Partially Vacate Court’s Nov.
28, 2022 Remand Order, ECF No. 32. The Court granted the motion in part to
permit Plaintiff to withdraw and waive Plaintiff’s claims but denied the motion in
part with respect to Plaintiff’s request to vacate portions of Aspects I. Order (Dec.
23, 2022), ECF No. 33. The Court directed that Customs was not required to
Court No. 20-03824 Page 4
address the lack of public summaries on remand. Order (Dec. 23, 2022), ECF No.
35.
Customs filed its Remand Redetermination with the Court on March 27,
2023, in which Customs clarified that its evasion determination did not apply to
entries made prior to the EAPA coming into force and expressly drew an adverse
inference that all of Aspects’ entries made during the period of investigation
contained covered merchandise. Remand Redetermination. Aspects filed
Plaintiff’s Comments in Opposition to Agency Final Remand Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Order. Pl.’s Cmts. Opp’n Agency Final Remand
Redetermination Pursuant Court Order (“Pl.’s Br.”), ECF No. 37. Defendant
United States (“Defendant”) filed Defendant’s Comments in Support of Agency
Remand Redetermination. Def.’s Cmts. Supp. Agency Remand Redetermination
(“Def.’s Br.”), ECF No. 38.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 517 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1517(g),2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the Court
2
Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) to encompass EAPA cases via § 421(b)
of Title IV of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, Pub. L.
No. 114-125, 130 Stat. 154, 168 (2016). All statutory citations herein are to the
2018 edition of the United States Code and all citations to regulations are to the
2020 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Court No. 20-03824 Page 5
jurisdiction over actions contesting determinations of evasion pursuant to the
EAPA statute. The Court reviews Customs’ evasion determination for compliance
with all procedures under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1517(c) and (f) and will hold unlawful “any
determination, finding, or conclusion [that] is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1517(c)(1)(A),
(g)(2). The Court reviews determinations made on remand for compliance with the
Court’s remand order. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 38
CIT 727, 730, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1290 (2014), aff’d, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
DISCUSSION
I. Public Summaries
19 C.F.R. § 165.4 requires that confidential information placed on the
administrative record be accompanied by either a public summary of the redacted
information or an explanation of why public summarization of the information is
not possible. 19 C.F.R. § 165.4. During the EAPA investigation, Customs failed
to place on the administrative record a public summary of redacted information in
the On-Site Verification Report (“Verification Report”), which was cited in both
the Notice of Final Determination as to Evasion (“May 18 Determination”) and the
Final Administrative Determination. See Aspects I, 46 CIT at __, 607 F. Supp. 3d
at 1271–73; see also On-Site Verification Report Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA)
Court No. 20-03824 Page 6
Case 7189 (Dec. 13, 2019) (“Verification Report”), PR 373, CR 295; Notice of
Final Determination as to Evasion (May 18, 2020) (“May 18 Determination”), PR
419, CR 310. The Court remanded the Final Administrative Determination to
Customs to address and remedy the lack of public summaries. Aspects I, 46 CIT at
__, 607 F. Supp. 3d at 1273.
Following Aspects I, Customs reopened the administrative record to permit
the parties to the investigation an opportunity to submit public versions of certain
documents previously placed on the administrative record. Customs’ Letter (Dec.
7, 2022), PRR 2. In response to Customs’ letter, Aspects notified Customs that it
did not intend to submit public summaries because:
[Aspects’] prior submissions of its public version documents were not
the subject of the Court’s Remand Order, and because such re-
submission, as requested in [Customs’] Letter, would be futile and
result in substantial costs for [Aspects], given the extent of the
information requested, [Aspects’] position is that it is not required to
comply with [Customs’] letter.
Aspects’ Email (Dec. 9, 2022) at 1, PRR 3. In response, Customs advised that it
was enforcing the requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 165.4 on remand and had identified
business confidential documents submitted by Aspects that did not comply with the
requirements of the regulation. Customs’ Email Resp. (Dec. 13, 2022), PRR 5.
Customs reiterated its request that Aspects provide public summaries of the
identified documents. Id.Court No. 20-03824 Page 7
Aspects filed an unopposed motion to partially vacate the Court’s remand
order requesting the Court’s permission to “withdraw and waive its arguments
based on 19 C.F.R. § 165.4 and the lack of public summaries” of confidential
documents placed on the administrative record by Customs in the EAPA
investigation. Pl.’s Unopposed Mot. Partially Vacate Court’s Nov. 28, 2022
Remand Order at 1–2. Plaintiff also requested that the Court vacate the portion of
the Aspects I opinion concluding that the failure of Customs to provide sufficient
public summaries of confidential documents was not in accordance with law and
remanding the issue to Customs for further consideration. Id. The Court granted
the motion in part with respect to Plaintiff’s request to withdraw and waive its
claims and arguments and denied the motion in part with respect to Plaintiff’s
request to vacate because Plaintiff did not demonstrate any defect with the Court’s
prior findings of fact or conclusions of law. Order (Dec. 23, 2022), ECF No. 33.
The Court directed that the Parties were not required to address the lack of public
summaries on remand because the argument was waived. Order (Dec. 23, 2022),
ECF No. 35.
II. Pre-EAPA Entries
The Court held that Customs’ EAPA investigation could not include
merchandise entered prior to the EAPA entering into force on August 22, 2016 and
remanded the Final Administrative Determination to Customs to clarify whether
Court No. 20-03824 Page 8
pre-EAPA entries were subject to the evasion determination. Aspects I, 46 CIT at
__, 607 F. Supp. 3d at 1257. On remand, Customs determined upon review of the
administrative record “that the May 18 Determination and the [Final
Administrative Determination did] not apply to Aspects’ entries made prior to
August 22, 2016.” Remand Redetermination at 4. In a Joint Status Report of
September 16, 2021, the Parties agreed that all of Aspects’ pre-EAPA entries were
liquidated on or before August 21, 2018 and prior to the issuance of the May 18
Determination and Final Administrative Determination. Joint Status Report (Sept.
16, 2021), ECF No. 30; see also Remand Redetermination at 5. Customs
determined that because all pre-EAPA entries reviewed during the EAPA
investigation were liquidated, the pre-EAPA entries were not subject to the evasion
determination. Remand Redetermination at 5–6. Neither Party contests this
determination. Pl.’ Br. at 2; Def.’s Br. at 13. The Court concludes that the
exclusion of Aspects’ entries prior to the entry into force of the EAPA statute on
August 22, 2016 is in accordance with law.
III. Truthfulness, Reasonableness, and Credibility of Statements
Aspects argued that statements relied upon by Customs regarding
observations of document destruction constituted inadmissible hearsay. See Pl.’s
Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. at 13–14, ECF No. 20. The Court held that hearsay
evidence is admissible in administrative proceedings “up to the point of
Court No. 20-03824 Page 9
relevancy.” Aspects I, 46 CIT at __, 607 F. Supp. 3d at 1259 (quoting Richardson
v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 410 (1971)). “If evidence meets this standard, it may be
considered ‘in light of its truthfulness, reasonableness, and credibility.’” Id.(quoting Anderson v. United States, 16 CIT 324, 327, 799 F. Supp. 1198, 1202
(1992)). No Party challenged the relevancy of the statements, but “[t]he Court
observe[d] that Customs did not provide any analysis about the truthfulness,
reasonableness, or credibility of the disputed evidence in weighing the accounts of
the Verification Report, though Customs asserted that the evidence was not needed
to establish substantial evidence of evasion.” Id. at __, 607 F. Supp. 3d at 1260.
The Court suggested that Customs might consider providing further explanation
regarding the truthfulness, reasonableness, and credibility of the evidence in
dispute on remand. Id.
On remand, Customs explained that during the verification process,
Customs’ employees visited the facilities of Aspects Nantong and two of Aspects’
Chinese suppliers, Nantong Fuhuang Furniture Co., Ltd. (“Nantong Fuhuang”) and
Wuxi Yushea Furniture Co., Ltd. (“Wuxi Yushea”) to verify information placed on
the administrative record. Remand Redetermination at 6; see also Verification
Report at 3–4. The on-site verification was conducted by Customs’ employees,
including individuals from the Center of Excellence and Expertise for Consumer
Products and Mass Merchandising, Regulatory Audit and Agency Advisory
Court No. 20-03824 Page 10
Services (“RAAAS”), National Threat Analysis Center, and Trade Remedy Law
Enforcement Directorate. Remand Redetermination at 7; see also Verification
Report at 2. The Verification Report was prepared by RAAAS in coordination
with the other Customs offices involved in the verification. Remand
Redetermination at 7–8; see also Verification Report at 2. Customs noted that the
international trade specialist who prepared the May 18 Determination was among
the verification team members who observed the alleged document destruction.
Remand Redetermination at 8.
Customs also explained that Customs’ employees are subject to a set of
standards of conduct that require Customs employees to “demonstrate the highest
standards of ethical and professional conduct to ensure efficient performance of
government services.” Id.; see U.S. Customs Directive No 51735-013B (Jan. 29,
2021) (“Customs’ Standards of Conduct”) at 1. Under these standards, “employees
who knowingly make false, misleading, incomplete, or ambiguous statements,
whether oral or written, in connection with any matter of official interest may be
subject to disciplinary action.” Remand Redetermination at 8; see also Customs’
Standards of Conduct § 7.4. Customs asserted that it was “reasonable to rely on
the statements and observations of its employees who are tasked with validating
the information placed by interested parties on the administrative record.” Remand
Redetermination at 8–9. Customs indicated that it had no reason to doubt the
Court No. 20-03824 Page 11
truthfulness, reasonableness, or credibility of its employees or the employees’
interpretation of the evidence. Id. at 7–8.
In an administrative proceeding, “[a]ny oral or documentary evidence may
be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of
irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 556(d).
“Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable
than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in
determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Aspects argued before Customs and
now argues before the Court that the evidence of document destruction was
immaterial to the statutory elements of evasion and should be excluded as
irrelevant. Pl.’s Br. at 5–9; Aspects’ Cmts. Draft Remand Redetermination at 3–5,
PRR 11. Aspects contends that the only type of documents identified among those
allegedly destroyed were container loading plans. Pl.’s Br. at 7. Aspects notes that
loading plans are not among the types of documents that importers are required to
maintain and present to Customs upon request. Id. (citing 19 C.F.R.§ 142.3).
Aspects asserts that the information contained in the loading plans was
ascertainable from other documents available to Customs. Id. at 7–8.
Aspects is incorrect in its assertion that the only documents that Customs’
employees observed being destroyed were container loading plans. The
Verification Report also references a Customs’ employee observing an Aspects
Court No. 20-03824 Page 12
Nantong employee deleting a chat record with an employee of Wuxi Yushea after
being asked to produce a sample container loading spreadsheet. Verification
Report at 16. Because Customs’ theory of evasion includes allegations that Wuxi
Yushea commingled merchandise from multiple manufacturers while masking the
actual manufacturer of the commingled goods and altering the descriptions of
goods on entry documents, container loading plans and the conversations between
the Aspects employee responsible for creating container loading plans and Wuxi
Yushea are relevant to both the issue of whether entries contained covered goods
and whether Aspects made materially false assertions in its entries. The evidence
is also relevant to the question of whether Aspects cooperated in the verification
process to the best of its ability. See 19 U.S.C. § 1517(c)(3)(A). The fact that this
information might have been ascertained from other sources on the record does not
render the destroyed documents irrelevant.
In the Remand Redetermination, Customs explained that it “found that
Aspects failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to [Customs’]
requests for information during the verification when Aspects’ employees deleted
electronic files in response to [Customs’] questions.” Remand Redetermination at
21. Customs stated that:
the destruction of evidence was significant because such actions
prevented [Customs] from fully understanding the scope of Aspects’
Nantong operations and which products from which manufacturers
Court No. 20-03824 Page 13
were exported to the United States. In addition, given that dozens of
files were deleted, [Customs] simply does not know the contents of
those files and what impact they would have on a determination as to
evasion. [Customs] only observed that Aspects’ employees withheld
that evidence from [Customs].
Id. at 22. Although Aspects was not required to maintain and provide container
loading plans under 19 C.F.R.§ 142.3, the Court concludes that Customs’ request
was reasonable and within its authority to collect additional information necessary
to make an evasion determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1517(c)(2). During the on-site
verification, Customs requested that an Aspects employee provide information
within Aspects’ records. Because Customs observed the Aspects employee not
cooperating and instead deleting files, see Verification Report at 16–17, the Court
concludes that the evidence of document destruction was relevant to Customs’
determination of evasion and the question of whether Aspects cooperated to the
best of its ability during the verification process.
If evidence is relevant, it must be weighed “in light of its truthfulness,
reasonableness, and credibility.” Anderson, 16 CIT at 327, 799 F. Supp. at 1202.
Aspects does not argue that Customs’ employees intentionally fabricated the
evidence of document destruction, but asserts that the factors call Customs’ claims
into question. Pl.’s Br. at 4. Aspects contends that the evidence lacks credibility
because Customs took eight months after the on-site verification to prepare the
Verification Report. Id. at 4–5. Aspects asserts that Customs did not share the
Court No. 20-03824 Page 14
Verification Report, including the allegations of document destruction, for more
than one year after it was completed, and argues that Customs “hid” the evidence
of document destruction from Aspects and its counsel for almost two years,
impairing Aspects’ ability to provide new factual information to rebut the
allegation. Id. at 5. Aspects also argues that Customs did not raise the matter with
its counsel during the on-site verification visit, at which time the allegedly deleted
files might have been recovered. Id.
Aspects cites no authority that would require Customs to issue the
Verification Report more promptly or to extend to Aspects an opportunity to
correct the alleged destructive conduct during verification. The Court concludes
that Customs’ delay in providing information about the destruction was not
arbitrary or capricious. The Court observes that Customs explained on remand
which employees were involved in the verification process, that the international
trade specialist who observed the alleged document destruction was involved in
preparing the Verification Report, and the ethical obligations imposed on the
employees involved in the verification process. Remand Redetermination at 7–8;
see also Customs’ Standards of Conduct. Customs has complied with the Court’s
suggestion to address the truthfulness, reasonableness, and credibility of the
statements considered in the evasion determination on remand. The Court
concludes, therefore, that Customs’ consideration of evidence concerning the
Court No. 20-03824 Page 15
destruction of documents during on-site verification was reasonable and in
accordance with law.
IV. Evasion Determination
Customs has authority under the EAPA to investigate and determine whether
covered merchandise was entered into the customs territory of the United States
through evasion. 19 U.S.C. § 1517(c)(1)(A). “Evasion” is defined as:
[E]ntering covered merchandise into the customs territory of the United
States by means of any document or electronically transmitted data or
information, written or oral statement, or act that is material and false,
or any omission that is material, and that results in any cash deposit or
other security or any amount of applicable antidumping or
countervailing duties being reduced or not being applied with respect
to the merchandise.
Id. § 1517(a)(5)(A).
In Aspects I, the Court deferred substantive consideration of Customs’
evasion determination until Customs provided clarification on remand of which
entries were included in the EAPA investigation and evasion determination.
Aspects I, 46 CIT at __, 607 F. Supp. 3d at 1269. On remand, Customs did not
engage in an entry-by-entry analysis of specific entries and merchandise, but
incorporated by reference the May 18 Determination and Final Administrative
Determination. Remand Redetermination at 17; see also id. at 13–17 (discussing
Aspects’ alleged actions in the context of drawing an adverse inference). Both the
May 18 Determination and Final Administrative Determination discussed the
Court No. 20-03824 Page 16
elements of evasion based on observations during on-site verification and
examples from a review of documents from sample entries. See May 18
Determination at 4–10; Final Admin. Determination at 8–10. On remand, Customs
applied an adverse inference and determined that all of Aspects’ entries during the
period of investigation contained subject merchandise. Remand Redetermination
at 9–17. Customs concluded that Aspects’ actions resulted in an avoidance or
reduction of duties on all of Aspects’ entries. Id. at 17, 26–27.
Aspects objects to Customs’ application of wholesale adverse inferences
against all of its entries, contending that Aspects cooperated during the
administrative investigation, and argues that sufficient facts were available on the
administrative record for Customs to determine which specific entries contained
covered merchandise. Pl.’s Br. at 9–14. Aspects also asserts that Customs failed
to demonstrate that Aspects avoided any applicable duties. Id. at 14–16.
Defendant disagrees with Aspects and asserts that the adoption of an adverse
inference was consistent with the Court’s remand instructions and the EAPA and
that Aspects’ challenges to Customs’ evasion determination are without merit.
Def.’s Br. at 19–25.
A. Covered Merchandise and Adverse Inference
Commerce determined that four of the six product categories included in
Customs’ Scope Referral were not covered by the Order. Final Scope Ruling at 1,
Court No. 20-03824 Page 17
34, PR 387, CR 303; see also Scope Referral Request Mem., PR 294, CR 235.
Despite Commerce’s scope ruling that only two product categories were within the
scope of the Order, Customs decided to include the non-covered merchandise in its
EAPA review because it determined that Aspects had provided unreliable product
descriptions. May 18 Determination at 8–10; Final Admin. Determination at 8–11.
This Court in Aspects I concluded that the inclusion of merchandise determined by
Commerce to be non-covered merchandise in the EAPA investigation was contrary
to law and remanded the Final Administrative Determination to Customs with
instructions to only include merchandise within the scope of the Order in the
EAPA investigation. Aspects I, 46 CIT at __, 607 F. Supp. 3d at 1267–69. On
remand, Customs explained:
As an initial matter, [Customs] has not disregarded Commerce’s
findings in the May 18 Determination and the [Final Administrative
Determination]. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1517(a)(3)(A), the term “evasion”
is defined as entry of covered merchandise into the United States by
means of material false statements. [Customs] does not purport to find
evasion with respect to any entries that it finds do not contain covered
merchandise. That said, [Customs] finds, after making inferences that
are adverse to Aspects’ interests from the facts otherwise available on
the record, that all of Aspects’ entries subject to the EAPA investigation
contained covered merchandise.
Remand Redetermination at 10–11.
Under the EAPA, when the party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of the party or person’s ability to comply with a request for information,”
Court No. 20-03824 Page 18
Customs may adopt an inference that is adverse to the interests of the party in
selecting from facts otherwise available on the record. 19 U.S.C. § 1517(c)(3)(A);
19 C.F.R. § 165.6. On remand, Customs determined that Aspects failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability with respect to Customs’ request for information
during the on-site verification because on two occasions Aspects’ employees were
observed deleting dozens of files in response to inquiries from Customs’ verifiers
about what merchandise was shipped and by which manufacturer. Remand
Redetermination at 11–12. Customs reasoned that the intentional withholding of
information by Aspects prevented Customs from obtaining “critical information”
regarding Aspects’ imports. Id. at 12. In addition, Customs noted that
discrepancies existed in many of the entry documents when compared to other
record evidence, causing Customs to determine that it was unable to identify the
manufacturer of some merchandise, merchandise descriptions on entry documents
were inaccurate, errors existed in the valuation of merchandise, and inconsistencies
existed in the reported gross weights and values between sales and shipping
documents. Id. Customs asserted that “[f]acts otherwise available on the record
indicate that Aspects systematically misrepresented the descriptions of
merchandise in the entry documents, such that [Customs] cannot trust the veracity
of any description of imported merchandise, and specifically, which particular
entries include covered merchandise.” Id. at 13. Customs observed multiple
Court No. 20-03824 Page 19
instances of reporting discrepancies that called into question the actual
manufacturer of Aspects’ merchandise, including misdescribed merchandise,
discrepancies in gross weight and value, and the commingling of merchandise
from multiple manufacturers. Id. at 13–16; see Verification Report at 4–6
(discussing Aspects’ practice of providing containers to Nantong Fuhuang and
Wuxi Yushea partially loaded with merchandise produced by other manufacturers
but declaring Wuxi Yushea or Nantong Fuhuang as exclusive manufacturers at
entry), 6–10 (discussing examples of inconsistent documents reflecting
discrepancies in quantity of cartons, gross weight, and value), 10–11 (discussing
examples of misdescribed covered merchandise), 13–15 (discussing examples of
altered unit prices). Relying on these otherwise available facts, Customs observed
that Aspects’ misrepresentations on its submitted documents were pervasive.
Remand Redetermination at 16. Customs argues essentially that because numerous
and pervasive discrepancies existed in the entry paperwork, it was reasonable for
Customs to apply an adverse inference to assume that all of the entry documents
were incorrect and that all of Aspects’ entries contained covered merchandise. The
Court agrees that it was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence for
Customs to determine that the numerous and pervasive discrepancies in entry
paperwork, in addition to the destruction of evidence during verification, justified
the application of an adverse inference against Aspects.
Court No. 20-03824 Page 20
B. Customs’ Evasion Determination
The EAPA defines “enter” as a singular “entry, or withdrawal from
warehouse for consumption, of merchandise into the customs territory of the
United States.” Id. § 1517(a)(4). Customs is tasked with determining whether
“covered merchandise was entered into the customs territory of the United States
through evasion.” Id. § 1517(c)(1). If Customs determines that evasion has
occurred, it shall suspend the liquidation of entries of such covered merchandise,
identify and apply applicable antidumping rates, require the posting of cash
deposits and take additional enforcement measures. Id. § 1517(d)(1).
In Aspects I, the Court deferred its substantive analysis of Customs’ evasion
determination until after Customs clarified which entries were included in the
EAPA investigation. Aspects I, 46 CIT at __, 607 F. Supp. 3d at 1269.
During verification, Customs considered 28 sample entries. Verification
Report at 3. The Remand Redetermination did not include an entry-by-entry
analysis, but incorporated determinations from the May 18 Determination and
Final Administrative Determination by reference. Remand Redetermination at 17.
In the May 18 Determination and Final Determination, Customs determined that
record evidence showed that more than half of the shipments could not be verified
due to discrepancies of the manufacturers, merchandise being described
inaccurately, and errors in valuation. See May 18 Determination; Final Admin.
Court No. 20-03824 Page 21
Determination. In the following discussion, the Court includes examples of many
of the entries that Customs considered. Based upon a review of the record
evidence considered by Customs, the Court concludes that Customs supported its
evasion determination with substantial evidence.
a. Entry Ending in 5073
Customs reviewed documentation for the entry ending in 5073 identifying
Nantong Fuhuang as the manufacturer of the imported merchandise. See Aspects’
Entry Package Sub. Sample 35 (“Aspects’ Entry 35”), PR 56, CR 42. Customs
noted, however, that the verification team reported that a Nantong Fuhuang
representative advised that Nantong Fuhuang was not the manufacturer of certain
items included on Aspects’ entry invoice. Verification Report at 4; see also Final
Admin. Determination at 9. The representative explained that “Aspects shipped
[the items], produced by an unknown manufacturer, to Nantong Fuhuang and that
Aspects asked [Nantong Fuhuang] to consolidate and export those items with its
merchandise, because Aspects [did] not have an export license from the Chinese
government.” Verification Report at 4. Despite the commingled merchandise
having been manufactured by different manufacturers, Aspects declared Nantong
Fuhuang as the sole manufacturer of the merchandise at the time of entry. Id. at 4–
5; Aspects’ Entry 35 at 1. During the investigation, Customs compared entry
documents and photographs, and Customs observed that headboards (covered
Court No. 20-03824 Page 22
merchandise) were misdescribed as wall panels (not covered merchandise). Final
Admin. Determination at 9; see Aspects’ Entry 35 at 2–4, 8, 12, 15–16.
Customs reviewed three sets of documents related to the entry ending in
5073—Aspects’ entry documents; the invoice, packing list, and export forms
provided by Nantong Fuhuang; and copies of entry documents included with
Aspects’ Value Follow-up Submission.3 Verification Report at 8–9, 14; see
Aspects’ Entry 35; Nantong Fuhuang’s Request for Info. Resp. (Feb. 11, 2018) at
Att. at 19–30 (“Nantong Fuhuang’s Entry 35”), PR 319; Aspects’ Value Follow-up
Part 2 (May 17, 2017) at 38–46, PR 102, CR 83. Customs observed that gross
weight and quantity values differed between export forms and bills of lading
included in the three sets of documents. Final Admin. Determination at 9;
Verification Report at 8–9. Specifically, Customs noted that the verification team
identified that the bill of lading provided by Aspects reflected a greater number of
cartons and greater gross weight than the export declaration form prepared by
Nantong Fuhuang. Verification Report at 8–9. Customs ascertained that the
discrepancy related to an item that was listed on the commercial invoice and
3
The Verification Report cites to Aspects’ October 27, 2017 resubmission of the
Value Follow-up data. See Verification Report at 8. The administrative record
before the Court does not include the resubmission of this data but does include the
May 17, 2017 submission of Aspects’ Value Follow-up. The discrepancy
referenced by Customs is present in the earlier document.
Court No. 20-03824 Page 23
packing list prepared by Aspects but was not listed on Nantong Fuhuang’s invoice
for payment to Aspects. Verification Report at 8–9; compare Aspects’ Entry 35,
with Nantong Fuhuang’s Entry 35.
Customs explained that during verification, a Nantong Fuhuang
representative confirmed that “Nantong Fuhuang added lines to the invoice for the
merchandise supplied by Aspects and manipulated the unit price calculated to
match the total sales price of the merchandise manufactured by Nantong Fuhuang
and sold to Aspects.” Verification Report at 14. Customs noted discrepancies
between the unit prices and descriptions of merchandise in the three sets of
documents considered by Customs. Id.; compare Aspects’ Entry 35 at 2, with
Nantong Fuhuang’s Entry 35 at 1 and Aspects’ Value Follow-up Part 2 at 38.
The Court concludes that Aspects entered covered merchandise in the entry
ending in 5073 through material misrepresentations on entry documents that
resulted in an avoidance of antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of
evasion for the entry ending in 5073 was supported by substantial evidence.
b. Entry Ending in 1238
The entry ending in 1238 included merchandise from Nantong Fuhuang and
Wuxi Yushea. See Aspects’ Entry Package Sub. Sample 36 (“Aspects’ Entry 36”),
PR 57–58, CR 43. For the merchandise that Aspects claimed was manufactured by
Nantong Fuhuang, Customs compared the entry documents provided by Aspects to
Court No. 20-03824 Page 24
the invoice, packing list, export documents, and purchase orders provided by
Nantong Fuhuang. Aspects’ Entry 36; Nantong Fuhuang’s Request for Info. Resp.
at Att. at 31–41 (“Nantong Fuhuang’s Entry 36”). Customs determined that the
documents provided by Nantong Fuhuang and Aspects contained discrepancies in
weight, quantity, and value. Final Admin. Determination at 10; Verification
Report at 9; compare Aspects’ Entry 36 at 5, with Nantong Fuhuang’s Entry 36 at
2 (packing lists reflecting different gross weight and quantity of cartons). Customs
also determined that unit prices were reduced for one of the items. Final Admin.
Determination at 10; Verification Report at 14; compare Aspects’ Entry 36 at 4,
with Nantong Fuhuang’s Entry 36 at 1 (invoices reflecting different unit costs for
merchandise). Customs observed that “if the goods are undervalued and
[antidumping] duties are deposited and assessed on an ad valorem basis (as is the
case with [wooden bedroom furniture]), the full amount of [antidumping duties]
owed was not paid and evasion has occurred.” Final Admin. Determination at 10.
For the merchandise that Aspects represented as having been manufactured
by Wuxi Yushea, Customs observed that the record included three sets of
documents that contained discrepancies—Aspects’ entry documents; an invoice
and packing list provided by Wuxi Yushea in response to Customs’ request for
information; and documents provided by Wuxi Yushea during verification.
Verification Report at 8; see Aspects’ Entry 36; Wuxi Yushea’s Request Info.
Court No. 20-03824 Page 25
Resp. Ex. C-1–C-3 (Feb. 6, 2018) at Ex. C-3 at 61–62, PR 315, CR 247; Wuxi
Yushea’s Verification Exhibits (May 11, 2018) at Ex. 4 at 1–20, PR 368–71, CR
291–94.
The Court concludes that Aspects entered covered merchandise in the entry
ending in 1238 through material misrepresentations on entry documents that
resulted in an avoidance of antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of
evasion for the entry ending in 1238 was supported by substantial evidence.
c. Entry Ending in 8671
The entry ending in 8671 contained merchandise manufactured by Wuxi
Yushea. Aspects’ Entry Package Sub. Sample 38 (“Aspects’ Entry 38”) (Apr. 22,
2017) at 2–10, PR 61, CR 45. Customs compared entry documents provided by
Aspects and documents provided by Wuxi Yushea. Verification Report at 10, 12;
Aspects’ Entry 38; Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Exhibits at Ex. 2 at 19–27 (“Wuxi
Yushea’s Verification Entry 38”). Customs determined that Aspects misdescribed
merchandise on its entry documents for the entry ending 8671. Final Admin.
Determination at 9; Verification Report at 10. Merchandise described as
“headboard” and “nightstands” (covered merchandise) on invoices provided by
Wuxi Yushea were described as “wall panel,” “side table,” and “end table” (non-
covered merchandise) on documents provided by Aspects. Compare Aspects’
Entry 38 at 2–3, with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 38 at 1–2. The Court
Court No. 20-03824 Page 26
concludes that Aspects entered covered merchandise in the entry ending in 8671
through material misrepresentations on entry documents that resulted in an
avoidance of antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of evasion for the entry
ending in 8671 was supported by substantial evidence.
d. Entry Ending in 8944
The entry ending in 8944 included merchandise manufactured by Wuxi
Yushea. Aspects’ Entry Package Sub. Sample 39 (“Aspects’ Entry 39”) (Apr. 22,
2017) at 1, PR 62, CR 46. Customs compared Aspects’ entry documents with
documents provided by Wuxi Yushea during verification. Verification Report at
10; Aspects’ Entry 39 at 3–6; Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Exhibits at Ex. 2 at 1–4
(“Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 39”). Customs observed that items described
as ‘king headboard” or “double headboard” (covered merchandise) in the Wuxi
Yushea documents were described as “wall panels” (non-covered merchandise) on
the Aspects invoice. Verification Report at 10; compare Aspects’ Entry 39 at 3–5,
with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 39 at 1–4.
Customs observed other discrepancies in the documents provided by Aspects
and Wuxi Yushea, such as the quantity of cartons and gross weight reported on
invoices, packing lists, and bills of lading. Verification Report at 9, 12, 15;
compare Aspects’ Entry 39 at 3–6, with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 39 at 1–
4. Customs noted that unit prices for merchandise differed between the Aspects
Court No. 20-03824 Page 27
and Wuxi Yushea invoices. Verification Report at 15; compare Aspects’ Entry 39
at 3, with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 39 at 1. The invoices also suggested
that unreported assists were provided by Aspects to Wuxi Yushea. Verification
Report at 12; compare Aspects’ Entry 39 at 3, with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification
Entry 39 at 1 (merchandise were listed and included in the total price on Aspects’
invoice but were not included on Wuxi Yushea’s invoice).
The Court concludes that Aspects entered covered merchandise in the entry
ending in 8944 through material misrepresentations on entry documents that
resulted in an avoidance of antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of
evasion for the entry ending in 8944 was supported by substantial evidence.
e. Entry Ending in 9253
The entry ending in 9253 contained merchandise manufactured by Wuxi
Yushea. Aspects’ Entry Package Sub. Sample 41 (“Aspects’ Entry 41”) (Apr. 22,
2017) at 3–6, PR 65, CR 49. Customs reviewed entry documents provided by
Aspects and invoices, packing lists, bills of lading, and export documents provided
by Wuxi Yushea during verification. Verification Report at 9, 10, 12; see Aspects’
Entry 41; Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Exhibits at Ex. 3 at 1–22 (“Wuxi Yushea’s
Verification Entry 41”). Customs observed differences in merchandise
descriptions between the manufacturer and importer invoices. Verification Report
at 10. Customs stated that merchandise described by Aspects as “end tables” and
Court No. 20-03824 Page 28
“credenzas” (non-covered merchandise) were identified on Wuxi Yushea’s
documents as “nightstands,” “dressers,” and “armoires” (covered merchandise).
Id.; compare Aspects’ Entry 41 at 3–5, with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 41
at 1–3. Customs also noted that Wuxi Yushea described the merchandise as
bedroom furniture (covered merchandise) on a freight company invoice and bill of
lading. Verification Report at 10; Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 41 at 5–7.
Customs included the entry ending in 9253 among examples of entries with
discrepancies between the weights and values reported by Aspects and those
reported by the manufacturer. Verification Report at 9. Customs observed that
Aspects’ packing list reflects a greater gross weight and number of cartons than the
packing list provided by Wuxi Yushea. Compare Aspects’ Entry 41 at 4–5, with
Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 41 at 2–3. The discrepancy appears to relate to
additional items included on Aspects’ packing list.
The Court concludes that Aspects entered covered merchandise in the entry
ending in 9253 through material misrepresentations on entry documents that
resulted in an avoidance of antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of
evasion for the entry ending in 9253 was supported by substantial evidence.
f. Entry Ending in 5559
The entry ending in 5559 contained merchandise manufactured by Wuxi
Yushea and Nantong Fuhuang. Aspects’ Entry Package Sub. Sample 55
Court No. 20-03824 Page 29
(“Aspects’ Entry 55”) (Apr. 22, 2017) at 3, PR 80, CR 64. Customs compared
invoices provided by Aspects and Wuxi Yushea. Verification Report at 14–15;
Aspects’ Entry 55 at 3; Wuxi Yushea’s Request Info. Resp. Ex. C-1–C-3 at Ex. C-
3 at 106–107 (“Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 55”). Customs observed that the two
invoices each reflected the same three items, but the invoice provided by Aspects
reflected lower unit prices and total value than the invoice provided by Wuxi
Yushea. Compare Aspects’ Entry 55 at 3, with Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 55 at 1.
The Court concludes that Aspects entered covered merchandise in the entry
ending in 5559 through material misrepresentations on entry documents that
resulted in an avoidance of antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of
evasion for the entry ending in 5559 was supported by substantial evidence.
g. Entry Ending in 9783
The entry ending in 9783 contained merchandise manufactured by Wuxi
Yushea. See Aspects’ Entry Package Sub. Sample 56 (“Aspects’ Entry 56”) (Apr.
22, 2017), PR 81, CR 65. Customs reviewed entry documents provided by Aspects
and documents provided by Wuxi Yushea during verification. Verification Report
at 9, 12–13; Aspects’ Entry 56; Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Exhibits at Ex. 3 at
55–116 (“Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 56”). Customs observed that the bill
of lading and packing list provided by Aspects reflected greater gross weights,
number of cartons, and total values than the export form and packing list provided
Court No. 20-03824 Page 30
by Wuxi Yushea. Verification Report at 9; compare Aspects’ Entry 56 at 3–5,
with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 56 at 22, 26–28. Customs also observed
that merchandise descriptions and other items were changed to non-covered
merchandise on the invoice provided by Aspects in lieu of covered merchandise
included on Wuxi Yushea’s invoice. Verification Report at 11; compare Aspects’
Entry 56 at 2, with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 56 at 21. The Court
concludes that Aspects entered covered merchandise in the entry ending in 9783
through material misrepresentations on entry documents that resulted in an
avoidance of antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of evasion for the entry
ending in 9783 was supported by substantial evidence.
h. Entry Ending in 9546
The entry ending in 9546 contained merchandise manufactured by Wuxi
Yushea. See Aspects’ Entry Packets 19, 20, 31, 34, and 36 Part 1 at 2–7
(“Aspects’ Entry 84”), PR 110, CR 90. In the Verification Report, Customs
observed that the administrative record included discrepancies with three sets of
documents for the entry—Aspects’ entry documents, an invoice and packing list
provided by Wuxi Yushea in response to Customs’ request for information, and
documents provided by Wuxi Yushea during verification. Verification Report at 7;
see also Aspects’ Entry 84; Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Exhibits (May 11, 2018)
at Ex. 5 at 1–7 (“Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 84”), PR 368–71, CR 291–94;
Court No. 20-03824 Page 31
Wuxi Yushea’s Request Info. Resp. Ex. C-1–C-3 at Ex. C-3 at 158–59 (“Wuxi
Yushea’s Entry 84”). In comparing the documents, Customs determined that three
additional products appeared on the invoice submitted as part of Aspects’ entry
package. Verification Report at 7; compare Aspects’ Entry 84 at 4–5, with Wuxi
Yushea’s Verification Entry 84 at 1–2, and Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 84 at 1–2.
Customs also observed that purchase orders provided by Aspects reflected
different manufacturers for two of the items despite those products appearing on
the Wuxi Yushea invoice without indication of other manufacturers. Verification
Report at 7; compare Aspects’ Entry 84 at 4–5, with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification
Entry 84 at 1–2, and Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 84 at 1–2. The description of
merchandise differed between versions of the invoices. Verification Report at 7;
compare Aspects’ Entry 84 at 4–5, with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 84 at 1–
2, and Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 84 at 1–2. The Court concludes that Aspects entered
covered merchandise in the entry ending in 9546 through material
misrepresentations on entry documents that resulted in an avoidance of
antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of evasion for the entry ending in
9546 was supported by substantial evidence.
i. Entry Ending in 9793
The entry ending in 9793 contained merchandise produced by Wuxi Yushea.
See Aspects’ Entry Packet Sub. Entry 21, 24, and 35 (June 23, 2017) at 2–7
Court No. 20-03824 Page 32
(“Aspects’ Entry 86”), PR 124, CR 99. Customs reviewed entry documents
provided by Aspects and corresponding documents provided by Wuxi Yushea.
Verification Report at 9, 13; see Aspects’ Entry 86; Wuxi Yushea’s Verification
Exhibits at Ex. 5 at 15–21 (“Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 86”). Customs
included the entry ending in 9793 among those entries with weight and value
discrepancies between importer and manufacturer documents. Verification Report
at 9. Customs compared the documents provided by Aspects and those provided
by Wuxi Yushea and determined that discrepancies showed that the gross weight
reflected on the packing list provided by Aspects did not match the gross weight on
the bill of lading provided by Wuxi Yushea. Compare Aspects’ Entry 86 at 4–5,
with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 86 at 2–4. The Court observes that the
packing lists provided by Aspects and Wuxi Yushea included several items that
were not included on accompanying invoices provided by Aspects and Wuxi
Yushea. Verification Report at 9; compare Aspects’ Entry 86 at 3–4, with Wuxi
Yushea’s Verification Entry 86 at 1–3. The Court further observes that the invoice
provided by Wuxi Yushea also reflected a greater total value than the invoice
provided by Aspects. Verification Report at 9; compare Aspects’ Entry 86 at 3,
with Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 86 at 1.
The Court concludes that Aspects entered covered merchandise in the entry
ending in 9793 through material misrepresentations on entry documents that
Court No. 20-03824 Page 33
resulted in an avoidance of antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of
evasion for the entry ending in 9793 was supported by substantial evidence.
j. Entry Ending in 0346
The entry ending in 0346 contained merchandise manufactured by Wuxi
Yushea. Aspects’ Entry Packet Sub. Entry 21, 24, and 35 at 7–11 (“Aspects’ Entry
89”). Customs reviewed entry documents provided by Aspects, an invoice and
packing list provided by Wuxi Yushea in response to Customs’ request for
information, and documents provided by Wuxi Yushea during verification and
included the entry on the list of entries that had multiple versions of invoices on the
administrative record. Verification Report at 8; Aspects’ Entry 89; Wuxi Yushea’s
Request Info. Resp. Ex. C-1–C-3 at Ex. C-3 at 195–96 (“Wuxi Yushea’s Entry
89”); Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Exhibits at Ex. 5 at 103–09 (“Wuxi Yushea’s
Verification Entry 89”). The Court observes that the record includes three versions
of Wuxi Yushea’s invoice for the entry ending in 0346. Aspects’ Entry 89 at 3;
Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 89 at 1; Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 89 at 1. The
invoice provided by Wuxi Yushea during verification reflected a greater quantity
of merchandise and total value than the other invoices. Compare Wuxi Yushea’s
Verification Entry 89 at 1, with Aspects’ Entry 89 at 3, and Wuxi Yushea’s Entry
89 at 1. The Court concludes that Aspects entered covered merchandise in the
entry ending in 0346 through material misrepresentations on entry documents that
Court No. 20-03824 Page 34
resulted in an avoidance of antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of
evasion for the entry ending in 0346 was supported by substantial evidence.
k. Entry Ending in 2576
The entry ending in 2576 contained merchandise manufactured by Wuxi
Yushea. Aspects’ Entry Package Sub. Entry 3 and 32 (June 23, 2017) (“Aspects’
Entry 97”), PR 117, CR 103–04. Customs included the entry ending in 2576
among the entries for which multiple versions of invoices were placed on the
administrative record. Verification Report at 8. Customs reviewed three sets of
documents for this entry—Aspects’ entry documents, an invoice and packing list
provided by Wuxi Yushea in response to Customs’ request for information, and
Wuxi Yushea’s documents provided during verification. Verification Report at 8;
see Aspects’ Entry 97; Wuxi Yushea’s Request Info. Resp. Ex. C-1–C-3 at Ex. C-3
at 198–200 (“Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 97”); Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Exhibits at
Ex. 5 at 122–33 (“Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 97”). The Court observes
that the invoice and packing list provided by Wuxi Yushea in response to Customs’
request for information reflected a greater quantity of merchandise but a lesser
total value than the invoices and packing lists provided by Aspects at entry or
Wuxi Yushea during verification. Compare Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 97 at 1–3, with
Aspects’ Entry 97 at 4–6, and Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 97 at 1–3. The
Court concludes that Aspects entered covered merchandise in the entry ending in
Court No. 20-03824 Page 35
2576 through material misrepresentations on entry documents that resulted in an
avoidance of antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of evasion for the entry
ending in 2576 was supported by substantial evidence.
l. Entry Ending in 1580
The entry ending in 1580 contained merchandise manufactured by Wuxi
Yushea. Aspects’ Entry Packets 19, 20, 31, 34, and 36 Part 2 (Jun. 23, 2017) at 1–
7 (“Aspects’ Entry 99”), PR 110–12, CR 90–91. Customs included the entry
ending in 1580 among the entries for which multiple versions of invoices were
placed on the administrative record. Verification Report at 8. Customs reviewed
three sets of documents for this entry—Aspects’ entry documents, an invoice and
packing list provided by Wuxi Yushea in response to Customs’ request for
information, and Wuxi Yushea’s documents provided during verification.
Verification Report at 8; see Aspects’ Entry 99; Wuxi Yushea’s Request Info.
Resp. Ex. C-1–C-3 at Ex. C-3 at 193–95 (“Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 99”); Wuxi
Yushea’s Verification Exhibits at Ex. 5 at 110–21 (“Wuxi Yushea’s Verification
Entry 99”). The invoice and packing list provided by Wuxi Yushea in response to
Customs’ request for information reflected fewer cartons and a lower total price
than the invoices and packing lists provided by Aspects or Wuxi Yushea during
verification, but the gross weight was consistent across all of the documents.
Compare Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 99, with Aspects’ Entry 99 at 4–6, and Wuxi
Court No. 20-03824 Page 36
Yushea’s Verification Entry at 1–5. The Court concludes that Aspects entered
covered merchandise in the entry ending in 1580 through material
misrepresentations on entry documents that resulted in an avoidance of
antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of evasion for the entry ending in
1580 was supported by substantial evidence.
m. Entry Ending in 4523
The entry ending in 4523 contained merchandise manufactured by Wuxi
Yushea. Aspects’ Entry Packets 19, 20, 31, 34, and 36 Part 2 at 8–33 (“Aspects’
Entry 101”). Customs reviewed entry documents provided by Aspects, an invoice
and packing list provided by Wuxi Yushea in response to Customs’ request for
information, and documents provided by Wuxi Yushea during verification.
Verification Report at 9–10; Aspects’ Entry 101; Wuxi Yushea’s Request Info.
Resp. Ex. C-1–C-3 at Ex. C-3 at 184–85 (“Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 101”); Wuxi
Yushea’s Verification Exhibits at Ex. 5 at 183–91 (“Wuxi Yushea’s Verification
Entry 101”). Customs identified the entry ending in 4523 as having weight and
value discrepancies between Aspects’ documents and the manufacturer’s
documents. Verification Report at 9. The Court observes that the three packing
lists reflected different quantities of cartons and gross weights. Compare Aspects’
Entry 101 at 5, with Wuxi Yushea’s Entry 101 at 2, and Wuxi Yushea’s
Verification Entry 101 at 2. The three invoices reflected different quantities of
Court No. 20-03824 Page 37
merchandise and total values and the invoice provided by Aspects included several
additional items. Compare Aspects’ Entry 101 at 4, with Wuxi Yushea’s Entry
101 at 1, and Wuxi Yushea’s Verification Entry 101 at 1. The Court concludes
that Aspects entered covered merchandise in the entry ending in 4523 through
material misrepresentations on entry documents that resulted in an avoidance of
antidumping duties. Customs’ determination of evasion for the entry ending in
4523 was supported by substantial evidence.
n. Remaining Entries
The entries ending in 0030, 8454, 0296, 9063, 7208, 0944, 1322, and 1355
each contained merchandise produced by Wuxi Yushea according to Aspects’
entry paperwork. See Aspects’ Entry Package Sub. Sample 64 (Apr. 22, 2017) at
23–25 (“Aspects’ Entry 64”), PR 90, CR 72; Aspects’ Entry Packet Sub. 22, 28,
29, and 30 Part 1 (June 23, 2017) at 5 (“Aspects’ Entry 87”), PR 113, CR 92;
Aspects’ Entry Package Sub. Entry 23 and 26 (June 23, 2017) at 2–12 (“Aspects’
Entry 88”), PR 125, CR 100; Aspects’ Entry Package Sub. Entry 27 (June 23,
2017) (“Aspects’ Entry 92”), PR 48, CR 102; Aspects’ Entry Packet Sub. 22, 28,
29, and 30 Part 1 at 10–16 (“Aspects’ Entry 93”); Aspects’ Entry Packet Sub. 22,
28, 29, and 30 Part 2 (June 23, 2017) at 1–7 (“Aspects’ Entry 94”), PR 114–16,
CR 93; Aspects’ Entry Packet Sub. 22, 28, 29, and 30 Part 2 at 8–62 (“Aspects’
Entry 95”); Aspects’ Entry Packets 19, 20, 31, 34, and 36 Part 1 at 13–18
Court No. 20-03824 Page 38
(“Aspects’ Entry 86”). Customs identified misrepresentations for these entries as
unreported assists allegedly provided by Aspects to Wuxi Yushea. Verification
Report at 13. The Court concludes that due to the pervasive discrepancies in the
entry paperwork, as well as the document destruction observed during verification,
it was reasonable for Customs to determine that the remaining entries, including
those ending in 0030, 8454, 0296, 9063, 7208, 0944, 1322, and 1355, contained
covered merchandise that were misrepresented in order to evade paying duties.
The Court sustains Customs’ evasion determination with respect to these
remaining entries.
Court No. 20-03824 Page 39
CONCLUSION
It is clear to the Court that Customs examined the relevant record evidence
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its evasion determination. The Court
concludes that Customs was reasonable in determining that there was substantial
evidence of evasion by Aspects given that covered merchandise was imported into
the United States, evidence was destroyed to avoid providing information to
Customs, and material misrepresentations resulted in lower duties being paid. For
the foregoing reasons, the Court sustains Customs’ Remand Redetermination.
Judgment will enter accordingly.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: August 22, 2023
New York, New York