71 F.Supp.3d 1375 (CIT 2015), 14-00248, Hutchison Quality Furniture, Inc. v. United States
|Citation:||71 F.Supp.3d 1375|
|Opinion Judge:||Claire R. Kelly, Judge.|
|Party Name:||HUTCHISON QUALITY FURNITURE, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant|
|Attorney:||No. 14-00248 John M. Peterson, Richard F. O'Neill, Russell Andrew Semmel, Neville Peterson, LLP, of New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Stephen Carl Tosini, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, 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 motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
This matter is before the court on Defendant's, United States, motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, Hutchison Quality Furniture, Inc. (" Plaintiff" or " Hutchison" ), 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 argues the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to avail itself of adequate judicial remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Alternatively, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim.2 The court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claim and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint for the reasons set forth below.3
Hutchison, an importer of furniture, entered merchandise as G.S. Sales Inc. (" G.S. Sales" ), produced by Tianjin First Wood Co. (" Tianjin First" ), a Chinese producer, and exported by Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (" Orient International" ). Compl. ¶ ¶ 11-12, Oct. 7, 2014, ECF No. 6 (" Pl.'s Compl." ). Hutchison's 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). Orient International filed suit in this Court contesting the results of the third administrative review and obtained an injunction against liquidation of its entries on September 9, 2009. See Pl.'s Compl. ¶ ¶ 21, 25, 28, Ex. A. The injunction provided " that the entries subject to this injunction shall be liquidated in accordance with the final court decision in this action, including all appeals, as provided in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(e)." Pl.'s Compl. Ex. A at 2.
The court consolidated Orient International's action with five other actions contesting the results of the third administrative review. Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 32. After several remands, the court sustained Commerce's third remand results on February 5, 2013. See Lifestyle Enter., Inc. v. United States, 37 Ct. Int'l Trade , , 896 F.Supp.2d 1297, 1299 (2013). In early April, two parties to the consolidated action filed notices of appeal, not including Orient International. Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 38.
On June 13, 2013, the Lifestyle court granted an unopposed motion made by one of the Proposed Intervenors in this case, AFMC, to sever and deconsolidate three of the previously consolidated actions, including Orient International's action. See Pl.'s Compl. ¶ ¶ 47-48. The court further ordered that Orient International's injunction was " hereby dissolved [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. ¶ 48 (citations omitted).
In a message dated June 25, 2013, Commerce issued instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (" Customs" or " CBP" ) to liquidate entries of furniture exported by Orient International during 2007 at a final rate of 83.55%. See Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 50, Ex. B at 2-3. In September 2013, CBP liquidated the entries imported by Plaintiff at the rates provided in these instructions. Id. ¶ 52.
Plaintiff challenges the validity of Commerce's liquidation instructions. It alleges that the merchandise at issue here was deemed liquidated six months following the Feburary 5, 2013 judgment in Lifestyle. As a result, it contends that " the Liquidation Instructions [that] list June 13, 2007 as the 'effective date' on which the suspension of liquidation of the subject entries was dissolved," are in fact invalid. Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 2. Plaintiff explains that it " seeks a declaratory...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP