CBP Says Wooden Bedroom Furniture Importer Evaded AD Duties

Aspects Furniture International used evasion to avoid antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture, CBP said in an Enforce and Protect Act final determination released May 21. The American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade (AFMC) filed allegations of evasion in 2017 (see 1708170024), though CBP said it was already looking at the company's entries for possible evasion. The lawyer for Aspects, Robert Snyder, said in an email that the determination "is going to be the subject of an administrative appeal within the regulatory timeline" and noted that the CBP's findings aren't final until the appeals process is completed.

Based on responses to CBP's information requests, “CBP concluded there were shipments to Aspects for which the manufacturer of the merchandise could not be identified, merchandise was described inaccurately on invoices, and there were errors in the valuation of merchandise,” the agency said. During 2018, CBP conducted onsite verifications of the responses, including at the Aspects office in Nantong, China, it said. Michael Taylor of King & Spalding, who represents the AFMC, didn't comment.

During the Aspects Nantong verification, a company employee deleted records while a CBP employee was watching and waiting for a sample document, CBP said. After the verification team asked for “samples of the container loading plans and spreadsheets, one of the verification team members 'saw him delete dozens of files from his computer,'” it said. The “destruction of information during attempted verification of merchandise from multiple suppliers being organized in the same individual containers relates to the issue of whether or not specific merchandise imported by Aspects could be linked to specific manufacturers, which is of critical importance with regard to the appropriate cash deposit rates,” the agency said.

According to a footnote in the determination, “Aspects claims ignorance of the details of the deletion and destruction” because of CBP's redactions in the verification report. The company also claims it did not “make material false statements or material omissions with respect to a variety of its imports.” That includes “products Commerce found to be outside the scope of the AD order because they are not described by the scope of the order, which therefore were properly identified as type 01 entries,” the company said. Commerce issued a January scope ruling that found several types of hotel furniture imported by Aspects, and originally covered by the EAPA investigation, not to be subject to the AD order (see 2001090054).

CBP responded that “though Aspects may have correctly classified certain imported products as type 03, CBP found discrepancies, such as those relating to the identification of the producers of specific merchandise, supporting a conclusion that applicable antidumping duties were underpaid,” the agency said. “Additionally, in regard to products Commerce found to be covered by the scope, those are relevant for the evasion analysis, given that those products were subject to suspension of liquidation under the AD order prior to Commerce’s scope inquiry and ruling.” Also, several entries under investigation involved products that weren't part of the scope referral because they were clearly within the scope, it said.

The company also argued that the investigation should not have been initiated. The allegation “included information reasonably available to the Alleger” and “even if not all of the information from the allegation was supported by further investigation, EAPA’s initiation was properly based on reasonably available information that raised suspicions of an evasion scheme,” CBP said.

CBP found the “problems with the record responses in this investigation are broad enough to undermine the reliability of Aspects’ reported entry information,” it said. “Therefore, on the basis of the aforementioned analysis, CBP determines that substantial evidence exists demonstrating Aspects misidentified the applicable AD cash deposit rate for entries of subject merchandise, and in other instances failed to declare entered subject merchandise to be subject to the AD order.”