Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. United States

• Decision Date: 03 January 2014
• Docket Number: Nos. 2012–1196,2012–1200.,s. 2012–1196
• Citation: 734 F.3d 1306
• Parties: ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant–Appellee, and United States International Trade Commission, Defendant–Appellee, and American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade, Kincaid Furniture Co., Inc., L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc., Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., Stanley Furniture Company, Inc., T. Copeland and Sons, Inc., And Vaughan–Bassett Furniture Company, Inc., Defendants–Appellees. Ethan Allen Global, Inc. and Ethan Allen Operations, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. United States and United States Customs and Border Protection, Defendants–Appellees, and International Trade Commission, Defendant–Appellee, and Kincaid Furniture Co., Inc., L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc., Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., Stanley Furniture Company, Inc., T. Copeland and Sons, Inc., and Vaughan–Bassett Furniture Company, Inc., Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

734 F.3d 1306

ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant–Appellee,andUnited States International Trade Commission, Defendant–Appellee,

and

American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade, Kincaid Furniture Co., Inc., L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc., Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., Stanley Furniture Company, Inc., T. Copeland and Sons, Inc., And Vaughan–Bassett Furniture Company, Inc., Defendants–Appellees.

Ethan Allen Global, Inc. and Ethan Allen Operations, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.United States and United States Customs and Border Protection, Defendants–Appellees,andInternational Trade Commission, Defendant–Appellee,

and

Kincaid Furniture Co., Inc., L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc., Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., Stanley Furniture Company, Inc., T. Copeland and Sons, Inc., and Vaughan–Bassett Furniture Company, Inc., Defendants–Appellees.

Nos. 2012–1196, 2012–1200.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2013.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 3, 2014.^*

Kevin Russell, Goldstein & Russell, P.C., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., et al. in appeal no.2012–1196. With him on the brief were Kristin H. Mowry, Jeffrey S. Grimson, Jill A. Cramer, Susan Lehman Brooks and Sarah M. Wyss, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, DC.

Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. With him on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Jessica R. Toplin, Trial Attorney. Of counsel were Courtney Sheehan McNamara, Trail Attorney.

Patrick V. Gallagher, Jr., Attorney, Office of General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued of defendant-appellee United States International Trade Commission. With him on the brief were Dominic L. Bianchi, Acting General Counsel, Neal J. Reynolds, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation.

Ashley C. Parrish, King & Spalding LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade, et al. With her on the brief were Joseph W. Dorn and Jeffrey M. Telep. Of counsel on the brief was Richard H. Fallon, of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Herbert C. Shelley, Steptoe & Johnson, LP, of Washington DC for amici curiae, SKF USA, Inc., et al. With him on the brief was Michael T. Gershberg. Of counsel on the brief were John M. Gurley, Nancy A. Noonan and Diana Dimitriuc–Quaia, Arent Fox LLP, of Washington DC.

David W. Debruin, Jenner & Block, LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Furniture Brands International, et al. With him on the brief was Matthew E. Price.

Terence P. Stewart, Stewart and Stewart of Washington, DC, for amici curiae Timken Company, et al. With him on the brief were Geert De Prest and Patrick J. McDonough. Of counsel on the brief were Roy T. Englert, Jr., Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, of Washington, DC.

Christopher T. Handman, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants Ethan Allen Global, Inc., et al., in appeal no.2012–1200. With him on the brief were Craig A. Lewis and Jonathan T. Stoel.

Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States, et al. With him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Jessica R. Toplin, Trial Attorney. Of counsel was Courtney Sheehan McNamara, Trial Attorney.

Patrick V. Gallagher, Jr., Attorney, Office of General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee International Trade Commission. With him on the brief were Dominic L. Bianchi, Acting General Counsel, Neal J. Reynolds, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation, and Geoffrey S. Carlson, Attorney.

Ashley C. Parrish, King & Spalding, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees Kincaid Furniture Co., Inc., et al. With her on the brief were Joseph W. Dorn and Jeffrey M. Telep. Of counsel on the brief was Richard H. Fallon, of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Herbert C. Shelley, Steptoe & Johnson, LP, of Washington, DC, for amici curiae SKF USA, Inc., et al. With him on the brief was Michael T. Gershberg. Of counsel on the brief were John M. Gurley, Nancy A. Noonan and Diana Dimitriuc–Quaia, Arent Fox, LLP, of Washington, DC.

David W. Debruin, Jenner & Block, LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Furniture Brands International, Inc., et al. With him on the brief was Matthew E. Price.

Terence P. Stewart, Stewart and Stewart of Washington, DC, for amici curiae Timken Company, et al. With him on the brief were Geert De Prest and Patrick J. McDonough. Of counsel on the brief were Roy Englert, Jr., Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner and Sauber, LLP, of Washington, DC.

Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Ashley Furniture, Inc., Ethan Allen Global, Inc., and Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. (Appellants) appeal from the decisions of the Court of International Trade (CIT) dismissing Appellants' complaints seeking compensation pursuant to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (the Byrd Amendment) for failure to state a claim for relief. Because the CIT correctly concluded that Appellants are not Affected Domestic Producers (ADPs) within the meaning of the Byrd Amendment and thus do not qualify for the requested relief, we affirm.

Background

Appellants are domestic producers of wooden bedroom furniture. In 2003, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated an antidumping investigation of Chinese wooden bedroom furniture manufacturers pursuant to a petition filed by an association of U.S. furniture manufacturers and several labor unions. In parallel, the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigated whether the domestic industry had been materially injured by dumped imports from China. To aid in the investigation, the ITC distributed questionnaires to all known domestic wooden bedroom furniture producers, seeking sales data and other information. Producers are required by law to respond to the questionnaires, and the Appellants duly responded. One of the questions asked, simply, “Do you support or oppose the petition?” and gave respondents the choice to answer “Support,” “Oppose,” or “Take no position.” Ashley answered “Oppose” and Ethan Allen answered “Take no position.”

The ITC subsequently determined dumping and injury to the domestic industryand issued an antidumping duty order. Pursuant to the order, Commerce directed the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (Customs) to collect duties on entries of Chinese wooden bedroom furniture. The ITC prepared a list of ADPs eligible under the Byrd Amendment to receive a share of the antidumping duties. See19 U.S.C. § 1675c(a), (d)(1) (2000) ( repealed by Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub L. No. 109–171, § 7601(a), 120 Stat. 4, 154 (Feb. 8, 2006; effective Oct. 1, 2007)). The ITC did not include Appellants because it determined that they were not “interested part[ies] in support of the petition” and therefore not ADPs. Id. § 1675c(b)(1)(A); see also id. § 1675c(d)(1). Accordingly, Customs denied Byrd Amendment distributions to Appellants.

Appellants sued the ITC, Customs, and domestic producers who received Byrd Amendment funds in the CIT. Although the Byrd Amendment has long since been repealed, Appellants sought their share of the funds for the several fiscal years when it was still in effect. Appellants contended that they supported the petition within the meaning of the Byrd Amendment and, in the alternative, that the Byrd Amendment violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. The CIT dismissed both Appellants' complaints, holding that our decision in SKF USA, Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed.Cir.2009), foreclosed their claims for relief. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. United States, 818 F.Supp.2d 1355 (C.I.T.2012); Ethan Allen Global, Inc. v. United States, 816 F.Supp.2d 1330 (C.I.T.2012).

This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

Discussion

We review the CIT's dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo.Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 672 F.3d 1041, 1049 (Fed.Cir.2012). “We review statutory interpretation by the CIT without deference. Constitutional interpretation is also a question of law, which we review de novo.” U.S. Shoe Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2002) (citations omitted).

The CIT reasoned that SKF, where we held that the Byrd Amendment's petition support requirement is not facially unconstitutional, disposed of Appellants' facial First Amendment challenges. The CIT also rejected Appellants' as-applied challenges because it found that SKF was not distinguishable. The court explained that SKF made clear that the government did not violate the First Amendment when it rewarded only those producers who supported the petition and denied distributions to those who were opposed to or neutral to it. Ashley Furniture, 818 F.Supp.2d at 1366;Ethan Allen, 816 F.Supp.2d at 1337–38 (citing SKF, 556 F.3d at 1359). Finally, the CIT held that the plain language of the Byrd Amendment prevented Appellants from obtaining relief. Ashley Furniture, 818 F.Supp.2d at 1361;Ethan Allen, 816 F.Supp.2d at 1336.

Appellants argue that the CIT's dismissal of their complaints must be reversed under PS Chez Sidney, L.L.C. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 684 F.3d 1374 (Fed.Cir.2012), a case decided after the CIT's rulings at issue in these appeals. Appellants contend that they, like the producer in Chez Sidney, should be awarded Byrd Amendment distributions. Appellants acknowledge...