Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. United States, No. 12-00100 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2012.
Download PDF
Slip Op. 13- 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE Before: Nicholas Tsoucalas, Senior Judge MARVIN FURNITURE (SHANGHAI) CO. LTD., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and AMERICAN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS COMMITTEE FOR LEGAL TRADE and VAUGHAN-BASSETT FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Intervenors. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Court No.: 12-00100 OPINION Held: Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. s motion for rehearing is denied. Dated: January 7, 2013 Neville Peterson, LLP, (John M. Peterson and Richard F. O Neill) for Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. Ltd., Plaintiff. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, (Carrie A. Dunsmore); Shana Hofstetter, Of Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, for the United States, Defendant. King & Spalding, LLP, (Joseph W. Dorn, J. Michael Taylor, and P. Lee Smith) for American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc., DefendantIntervenors. Court No. 12-00100 Page 2 TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge: Plaintiff Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. ( Marvin ) seeks reconsideration of Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. v. United States, 36 CIT (2012) ( Marvin I ) under USCIT R. 59. , 867 F. Supp. 2d 1302 Marvin I upheld defendant Department of Commerce s ( Commerce ) decision to rescind a new shipper review as a consequence of Marvin s failure to disclose the first entry of its subject exports in the manner prescribed in 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(b)(2)(iv) (2012). Marvin I, 36 CIT at , 867 F. Supp. 2d at 1307 09; see Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People s Republic of China: Final Rescission of Antidumping New Shipper Review, 77 Fed. Reg. 21,536, 21,537 38 (Apr. 10, 2012). and defendant-intervenors American Furniture Commerce Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. oppose the motion. The court assumes familiarity with the record and proceedings to date. Reconsideration under USCIT R. 59 is within the court s discretion. Dorsey v. U.S. Sec y of Agric., 32 CIT 270, 270 (2008) (not reported in the Federal Supplement). Although it may exercise such discretion to rectify a significant flaw in the conduct of the original proceeding, id. (quoting W.J. Byrnes & Co. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 358, 358 (1972)), a court should not disturb its prior decision unless it is manifestly erroneous. Id. (citing Starkey Labs., Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT 504, 505, 110 F. Supp. 2d 945, 946 47 (2000); Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. United Court No. 12-00100 Page 3 States, 22 CIT 280, 282, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1261 (1998)). The purpose of a rehearing is not to relitigate the case . . . . NEC Corp. v. Dep t of Commerce, 24 CIT 1, 2, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1282 (2000) (quoting Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 22 CIT 2, 2, 994 F. Supp. 393, 394 (1998)). Marvin claims that the [c]ourt found, as a fact, that Marvin was the importer of the unreported . . . entries which formed the basis for the rescission. Pl. s Mot. Recons. at 2 ( Pl. s Br. ). In support of this assertion, Marvin quotes portions of Marvin I where the court joined the words Marvin and entry using phrases like Marvin s entries and Marvin made entries. (quoting Marvin I, 36 CIT at Id. at 6 , 867 F. Supp. 2d at 1305 06, 1308). Marvin alleges that [e]very single one of the [c]ourt s findings ascribing the September 2010 entries to Marvin is incorrect, as a matter of fact, because a third party, Triple Play Services, Inc., acted as the importer of record for the September 2010 entries. Id. at 2 (emphasis omitted). Marvin seeks reconsideration to the extent Marvin s involvement with, or knowledge of, the 2010 Triple Play entries is material to the Court s decision. Id. at 5. Marvin grossly mischaracterizes the language in Marvin I the court did not in any way state or imply that Marvin was the importer of record for the September 2010 entries. CIT at , 867 F. Supp. 2d at 1305 09. Marvin I, 36 The court attached the term entries to Marvin so as to communicate the undisputed fact that Court No. 12-00100 Page 4 the entries described goods that Marvin produced. Id. Marvin I is not the first judicial opinion to assign grammatical ownership of the term entries to an exporter so as to convey its relationship to an entered good. See, e.g., American Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816, 819 22 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (discussing exporter Dare Group s 2006 entries even though another company acted as the importer of record); United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 35 CIT , , 791 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1343 46, 1349, 1361 68 (2011) (repeatedly attaching grammatical ownership of the term entry to the names of various exporters even though none acted as the importer of record); Viraj Forgings Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 513, 513 14, 516, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1288, 1289 90, 1292 (2002) (attaching grammatical ownership of the word entries to the exporter in one instance, and to both the exporter and the importer of record in another). Consequently, Marvin s request to reconsider on the basis of factual error must be denied for want of any such error. Marvin s remaining three arguments repeat those it made earlier in support of its motion for judgment on the agency record.1 1 Because it has failed to establish an appropriate basis Specifically, Marvin argued that (1) the purpose of new shipper review initiation documents is solely to determine whether a shipper is in fact a new shipper, Pl. s Mot. J. Agency R. at 18 21, 29 34 ( Pl. s MJAR ); (2) its subsequent responses to Commerce s questionnaires effectively corrected the deficient initiation request pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d), Pl. s MJAR at 6 8, 25 27, 33 34; Pl. s Reply Supp. MJAR at 11 13; and (3) [a]s Court No. 12-00100 Page 5 for granting a rehearing, see Xerox Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 823, 823 24 (1996) (not reported in the Federal Supplement); Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 34 CIT , , 751 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1318 (2010), Marvin s motion for reconsideration on its remaining arguments must be denied. ORDER In accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. s motion for rehearing is denied. /s/NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS Nicholas Tsoucalas Senior Judge Dated: January 7, 2013 New York, New York a matter of law, [new shipper reviews] are not initiated until Commerce has published the notice of the review in the Federal Register, meaning that Commerce had all the information it requested on or before the [initiation] date. Pl. s Reply Supp. MJAR at 14 16. The court considered and rejected each of these arguments in Marvin I. Marvin I, 36 CIT at , 867 F. Supp. 2d at 1306 09; see Pl. s Br. at 6 15 (seeking reconsideration of the same).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
