EAPA Challenger Has Interest in Case Via Goodwill and Reputation Concerns, Plaintiff Says

Furniture importer Aspects Furniture International has a protectable interest in an antidumping duty evasion case at the very least due to "goodwill, reputation, and freedom to take advantage of business opportunities" concerns, the importer said in an Aug. 30 filing in the Court of International Trade. Responding to the Department of Justice's arguments countering its initial motion for judgment, AFI also said that, contrary to the government's position, CBP's limited administrative avenues to submit written arguments during the investigation were insufficient from a constitutional perspective to reject AFI's due process violation claims (Aspects Furniture International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03824).

AFI originally filed its Enforce and Protect Act case in November, challenging CBP's determination that the importer evaded antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China. AFI argued that the customs agency violated the importer's due process protections by failing to include a mechanism through which it could access the complete and unredacted record behind the evasion determination (see 2011160031).

DOJ responded that AFI didn't have a protectable interest in the case since a company doesn't have any legally protectable interest in any duty rate, an importation or even engaging in international trade (see 2107090062). The government cited a 2015 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case, International Custom Products Inc. v. United States, to make this claim. DOJ also said that AFI had ample opportunity to submit arguments administratively after CBP imposed interim measures in the investigation.

AFI responded that goodwill, reputation and freedom to take advantage of business opportunities are alone to assert a legal interest, per the standard set by the 2014 CIT case Kwo Lee, Inc. v. United States. The importer also said that its administrative outlets to submit arguments were insufficient.

"Here, while EAPA allowed AFI to file written arguments before the administrative agency, AFI did not have access to the full and unredacted Administrative Record when submitting such written arguments, which prevented it, through its counsel, to effectively defend itself against all the findings CBP made against it, since many of these findings were themselves redacted," the brief said. "AFI and its counsel were given no time whatsoever to comment on the confidential information upon which [CBP's Trade Remedy and Law Enforcement Directorate (TRLED)] based its Initial Determination or [Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings (ORR)] its Review Determination. CBP denied Plaintiffs all access to confidential information throughout the entire EAPA Investigation, and the fact that Plaintiff ultimately obtained access to these confidential records through the filing of the pending action does not cure these deficiencies."