Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs. of America
Decision Date | 31 May 1996 |
Docket Number | 95-1027,Nos. 94-1490,s. 94-1490 |
Citation | 85 F.3d 589 |
Parties | HOSIDEN CORPORATION, Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Corporation, Apple Computer, Inc., International Business Machines Corporation, COMPAQ Computer Corporation, Tandy Corporation, Plaintiffs, and Sharp Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADVANCED DISPLAY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant, and Planar Systems, Inc., Plasmaco, Inc., OIS Optical Imaging Systems, Inc., Cherry Display Products Corporation, Electro-Plasma, Inc., Photonics Technology, Inc., and Magnascreen Corporation, Defendants, and Texas Instruments, Incorporated, Defendant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Paul C. Rosenthal, Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, Washington, DC, argued for Advanced Display Manufacturers of America, defendant-appellant. With him on the brief was Robin H. Gilbert.
Shalom Brilliant, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, argued for United States, defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, and Barbara C. Potter, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, of counsel were Berniece A. Brown, and Stephen J. Powell, Office of Chief Counsel, for Import Administration.
Christopher P. Johnson, Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Peter J. Gartland, David S. Versfelt, and Fusae Nara.
Before RICH, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
The Advanced Display Manufacturers of America (ADMA) and the United States appeal the Order of the Court of International Trade 1 granting a writ of mandamus to implement the court's decision in Hosiden Corp. v. United States, 852 F.Supp. 1050 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994). In that decision the court had ordered Commerce, through the International Trade Administration, to revoke the previously imposed antidumping duty order within ten days of the court's decision, to refund cash deposits, and to terminate administrative reviews. Commerce then published a "Notice of court decision" announcing that "[i]f the case is not appealed, or is affirmed on appeal, then the antidumping duty orders on EL FPDs will be revoked." Electroluminescent High Information Content Flat Panel Displays and Display Glass Therefor From Japan, 59 Fed.Reg. 23,690 (May 6, 1994). The Notice provided that liquidation would continue to be suspended until the time for appeal expired or the Federal Circuit decided the appeal. Id.
Appeal of the underlying decision was timely taken to the Federal Circuit. Meanwhile Sharp Corporation sought from the Court of International Trade a writ of mandamus, requiring Commerce immediately to revoke the antidumping duty order and end the suspension of liquidation. The Court of International Trade granted the writ, and Commerce complied with the court's order. Electroluminescent High Information Content Flat Panel Displays (EL FPDs) and Display Glass Therefor From Japan, 59 Fed.Reg. 43,809 (Aug. 25, 1994). ADMA and the United States appeal, arguing that by statute such action shall not be taken until the issuance of a "final decision," defined as the decision upon appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when such appeal is taken.
In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(e), entries of merchandise for which liquidation has been suspended by court order remain subject to suspension of liquidation until there is a "final court decision in the action":
§ 1516a(e) Liquidation in accordance with final decision
If the cause of action is sustained in whole or in part by a decision of the United States Court of International Trade or of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit--
...
(2) entries, the liquidation of which was enjoined under subsection (c)(2) of this section, shall be liquidated in accordance with the final court decision in the action. Such notice of the court decision shall be published within ten days from the date of the issuance of the court decision.
A decision of the Court of International Trade that has been appealed "is not a 'final court decision' within the plain meaning of § 1516a(e)." Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 339 (Fed.Cir.1990); see also Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 915 F.2d 683, 688 (Fed.Cir.1990) (); NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 892 F.2d 1004, 1006 (Fed.Cir.1989) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States
...at 44-45. (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1516a, 1673d, 1673e ; Timken Co. v. United States , 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ; Hosiden v. United States , 85 F.3d 589 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ). In sum, Guizhou argues that, notwithstanding the Diamond Sawblades dicta, the court should find that Commerce prematur......
-
Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. U.S., Slip Op. 06-43.
...that a preliminary injunction dissolves upon issuance of a final and conclusive court opinion); Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs. Of America, 85 F.3d 589, 591 (Fed.Cir. 1996) ("The Court of International Trade does not have discretion to require liquidation before the final decision o......
-
Fujitsu General America, Inc. v. U.S.
...enjoined, remains suspended until there is a `conclusive court decision which decides the matter ....'" Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs. of Am., 85 F.3d 589, 591 (Fed.Cir.1996)(quoting Timken, 893 F.2d at The Federal Circuit issued its decision affirming Commerce's Modified Final Res......
-
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. U.S.
...No. 06-00247) Joint Opp. at 15-16. They assert that the Federal Circuit's decisions in Timken and Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Manufacturers of America, 85 F.3d 589 (Fed.Cir.1996) clearly establish that Decca was based upon a misreading of Timken and that, contrary to the observations ......