Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 January 2013
• Docket Number: Court No. 12–00100.,Slip Op. 13–3.
• Citation: 899 F.Supp.2d 1352
• Parties: 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: U.S. Court of International Trade

899 F.Supp.2d 1352

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.

Slip Op. 13–3.
Court No. 12–00100.

United States Court of
International Trade.

Jan. 7, 2013.

[899 F.Supp.2d 1353]

Neville Peterson, LLP, (John M. Peterson, New York, NY, 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, Washington, DC (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), Washington, DC, for American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan–Bassett Furniture Company, Inc., Defendant–Intervenors.

OPINION
TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge:

Plaintiff Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (“Marvin”) seeks reconsideration of Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. v. United States, 36 CIT ––––, 867 F.Supp.2d 1302 (2012) (“Marvin I ”) under USCIT R. 59. 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). Commerce and defendant-intervenors American Furniture 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 WL 728882 (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

[899 F.Supp.2d 1354]

Starkey Labs., Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT 504, 505, 110 F.Supp.2d 945, 946–47 (2000); Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. United States, 22 CIT 280, 282, 4 F.Supp.2d 1259, 1261 (1998)). “The purpose of a...