70 F.Supp.3d 1343 (CIT. 2015), 14-00200, P.F. Stores, Inc. v. United States
|Citation:||70 F.Supp.3d 1343|
|Opinion Judge:||Kelly, Judge:|
|Party Name:||P.F. STORES, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and AMERICAN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS COMMITTEE FOR LEGAL TRADE AND VAUGHANBASSETT FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Intervenors|
|Attorney:||No. 14-00200 Josh Levy, Peter S. Herrick, P.A., of Florida, argued for Plaintiff. On the brief was Peter Stanwood Herrick. Douglas Glenn Edelschick, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for Defendant. With him on the b...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge.|
|Case Date:||June 09, 2015|
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
Granting Defendant's and Defendant-Intervenors' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
This matter is before the court on Defendant's, United States, and Defendant-Intervenors', American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc., motions to dismiss. Plaintiff, P.F. Stores, Inc. (" Plaintiff" or " PF Stores" ), argues the court has 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (2012)1 jurisdiction because the U.S. Department
of Commerce's (" Commerce" ) actions resulted in Plaintiff's entries being deemed liquidated. Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors argue the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to avail itself of adequate judicial remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). The court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint for the reasons set forth below.
PF Stores is an importer of wooden bedroom furniture manufactured in China by Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (" Dream" ). See Compl. ¶ ¶ 1, 4-5, Aug. 26, 2014, ECF No. 2 (" Pl.'s Compl." ). PF Stores' entries were subject to the third administrative review of the antidumping order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China, covering entries made in 2007. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 74 Fed.Reg. 41,374 (Dep't Commerce Aug. 17, 2009) (final results of antidumping duty administrative review and new shipper reviews). Dream filed suit in this Court contesting the results of the third administrative review and obtained an injunction against liquidation of its entries on September 22, 2009. See Pl.'s Compl. ¶ ¶ 6-7, Ex. A. The injunction provided that the subject entries " shall be liquidated in accordance with the final court decision in this action, including all appeals and remand proceedings, as provided in section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(e) (2006)." Pl.'s Compl. Ex. A at 2.
The court consolidated Dream's action with five other actions contesting the results of the third administrative review on November 6, 2009. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss & App. DA40, Dec. 3, 2014, ECF No. 14 (" Def.'s Mot. & App." ). After several remands, the court sustained Commerce's third remand results on February 5, 2013. See Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. v. United States, 37 CIT__,__, 896 F.Supp.2d 1297, 1299 (2013). Two parties to the consolidated action, not including Dream, appealed the court's slip opinions. See Def.'s Mot. & App. DA33-DA34 (docket listing notices of appeal).
On June 13, 2013, the Lifestyle court granted an unopposed motion made by the Defendant-Intervenors in this case, to sever and deconsolidate three of the previously consolidated actions, including Dream's action. See Def.'s Mot. & App. DA34, DA42-43. The court further ordered that Dream's injunction was " hereby amended as follows . . . all entries exported by Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. and Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. shall be liquidated without delay in accordance with this Court's February 5, 2013 final judgment for the period January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 . . . ." Id. at DA43
In a message dated June 25, 2013, Commerce issued instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (" CBP" ) to liquidate entries of furniture exported by Dream during 2007 at a final rate of 216.01%. See Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 10, Ex. B at 1. In September 2013, CBP liquidated the entries imported by Plaintiff and exported by Dream at the rates provided in these instructions. Def.'s Mot. & App. DA46, DA49. Plaintiff filed protests arguing that the entries it imported from Dream were deemed liquidated pursuant to Section 504(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) (2012),2 six months
from the court's February 5, 2013 slip opinion. Id. at DA44-DA49. CBP denied these protests on May 21 and June 5, 2014. Id. at DA46, DA49.
Plaintiff does not challenge the denial of its protests in this action. Rather, Plaintiff argues that it challenges various Commerce actions for which the court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP