Opinion ID: 446443
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: AAEI-TAG's Complaint.

Text: 11 The gist of AAEI-TAG's complaint is that CITA has requested consultations and unilaterally instituted quotas without a proper finding of market disruption, as required by the MFA and the bilateral agreements. 6 AAEI-TAG claims that CITA has improperly requested consultations or undertaken unilateral actions on 75 occasions between 1980 and 1982. 7 Of particular concern to AAEI-TAG, as evidenced by the detailed treatment in its complaint, is the unilateral imposition of quotas on Chinese textile imports lower than those established by the U.S.-P.R.C. agreement. AAEI-TAG alleges that CITA's actions have irreparably harmed its members through additional costs, delays, embargoes, and disruption of orders subject to irrevocable letters of credit. CITA's actions are challenged on several grounds, the most important of which are that CITA: (1) acted arbitrarily and capriciously; (2) exceeded the scope of its statutory authority under section 204; and (3) violated the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553 (1982). AAEI-TAG also includes a constitutional due process argument. 12 In support of its first argument, AAEI-TAG points to a Department of Commerce solicitation which sought assistance in collecting data on the United States apparel market. 8 The solicitation states: 13 There is a critical need for such data. At present, there is a lack of sufficient and timely apparel production, sales, consumption, and price data. This information is necessary to identify and substantiate market disruption.... 14 Presently, OTEXA [the Commerce Department office responsible for providing CITA with administrative support] uses current import data and production data that range from 12 to 24 months old. 15 AAEI-TAG points to this admission by the Government, and asserts that CITA's actions are not based on a proper determination of market disruption as required by the MFA and bilateral agreements. The resulting requests for consultation and unilateral imposition of import restrictions are, according to AAEI-TAG, arbitrary and capricious. 16 AAEI-TAG bases its argument as to statutory authority on its interpretation of section 204 which views that provision as having granted the President two separate powers. The first authorizes the President (through CITA) to negotiate with foreign governments in an effort to obtain agreements limiting textile imports into the United States. AAEI-TAG concedes that the President has full discretion in this area, since Congress called for such negotiations whenever he [the President] deems appropriate. The second authorization in section 204 allows the President to issue regulations governing textile trade to carry out any such agreement. The argument runs that Congress, by using the phrase to carry out, intended to authorize only such regulations which properly implement the very agreements the President has negotiated. In a corollary argument, AAEI-TAG contends that Congress intended to incorporate the terms of the agreements into the statute, and that, by violating the strict terms of the agreement, CITA exceeded its statutory authority. 17 With regard to the procedure CITA employs, AAEI-TAG claims that CITA's requests for consultations and the unilateral impositions of quotas are administrative actions subject to the notice and comment provisions of the APA. Moreover, according to AAEI-TAG, denial of an opportunity to be heard prior to imposition of quotas violates the importers' due process rights. 18