Standard Furniture Mfg. Co. v. United States

Decision Date17 February 2012
Docket NumberSlip Op. 12–21.Court No. 07–00028.
Citation34 ITRD 1206,823 F.Supp.2d 1327
PartiesSTANDARD FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES and United States International Trade Commission, Defendants,andAmerican 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., Defendant–Intervenors.
CourtU.S. Court of International Trade

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Kristin H. Mowry, Jeffrey S. Grimson, Jill A. Cramer, Sarah M. Wyss, and Susan L. Brooks, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, DC and Kevin K. Russell, Goldstein, Howe & Russell, P.C., of Bethesda, MD, for plaintiff.

Jessica R. Toplin, David S. Silverbrand, Courtney S. McNamara, and Michael J. Dierberg, Trial Attorneys, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant United States. With them on the briefs were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the briefs was Andrew G. Jones, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, of New York, NY.

Patrick V. Gallagher, Jr., Attorney Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With him on the briefs were James M. Lyons, General Counsel, and Neal J. Reynolds, Assistant General Counsel.Joseph W. Dorn and Jeffrey M. Telep, King & Spalding, LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade, Kincaid Furniture Co., Inc., L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc., Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., Stanley Furniture Co., Inc., T. Copeland and Sons, Inc., and Vaughan–Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. With them on the briefs was Taryn K. Williams. Of counsel on the briefs was Richard H. Fallon, of Cambridge, MA.Before: GREGORY W. CARMAN, Judge, TIMOTHY C. STANCEU, Judge, LEO M. GORDON, Judge.

OPINION

STANCEU, Judge:

Plaintiff Standard Furniture Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Standard), a domestic furniture manufacturer, brought four separate actions, now consolidated,1 during the period of January 31, 2007 through March 4, 2010, all stemming from certain administrative determinations of the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs” or “CBP”). The ITC did not include Standard on the list of entities potentially eligible for status as an “affected domestic producer” (“ADP”) under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (the “CDSOA” or “Byrd Amendment), Pub.L. No. 106–387, §§ 1001–03, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–72–75, 19 U.S.C. § 1675c (2000),2 repealed by Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109–171, § 7601(a), 120 Stat. 4, 154 (Feb. 8, 2006; effective Oct. 1, 2007). If the ITC had included Standard on the list of companies potentially eligible for ADP status, Standard might have qualified for annual monetary distributions by Customs of antidumping duties collected under an antidumping duty order on imports of wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China. Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value & Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China, 70 Fed.Reg. 329 (Jan. 4, 2005) (“ Antidumping Duty Order). The ITC construed the “petition support requirement” of the CDSOA, under which distributions are limited to petitioners and parties in support of a petition, to disqualify Standard from the list of potential ADPs because Standard indicated to the ITC that it opposed the petition that resulted in the antidumping duty order.

Plaintiff claims that the administrative actions of the two agencies were inconsistent with the CDSOA, were not supported by substantial evidence, and were otherwise not in accordance with law. Plaintiff also brings constitutional challenges grounded in the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment equal protection guarantee, and the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee.

Before the court are four dispositive motions. On February 23, 2011, defendant-intervenors American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade, Kincaid Furniture Co., Inc., L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc., Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., Stanley Furniture Co., Inc., T. Copeland and Sons, Inc., and Vaughan–Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) and for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). Def.-intervenors' Mot. to Dismiss & for J. on the Pleadings (Feb. 23, 2011), ECF No. 61 (“Def.-intervenors' Feb. Mot.”). After the court granted plaintiff leave to amend its complaints in Court Nos. 07–00028 and 07–00295, defendant-intervenors moved to dismiss under USCIT Rule 12(b)(5). Def.-intervenors' Mot. to Dismiss Case Nos. 07–00028 & 07–00295 (April 1, 2011), ECF No. 83 (“Def.-intervenors' Apr. Mot.”). Defendants ITC and Customs moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) on May 2, 2011. Def. U.S. Customs & Border Protection's Mot. to Dismiss the Second Amended Compl. for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief can be Granted (May 2, 2011), ECF No. 92 (“Customs' Mot.”); Def. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n's Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (May 2, 2011), ECF No. 91 (“ITC's Mot.”).

Also before the court is Standard's motion for a preliminary injunction, filed January 11, 2012. Pl.'s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (Jan. 11, 2012), ECF No. 110. Standard seeks to halt, pending a final disposition of this litigation, including all appeals and remands, CBP's pending distribution of certain collected antidumping duties to domestic parties recognized as ADPs by the Commission, including the defendant-intervenors in this case. Id. at 1. The distribution was scheduled to occur on or after January 31, 2012.3 Def. U.S. Customs & Border Protection's Resp. to the Ct.'s Feb. 14, 2011 Request (Feb. 28, 2011), ECF No. 66. Customs withheld these funds from distribution pending the resolution of various lawsuits, including plaintiff's, challenging the constitutionality of the CDSOA.

The court concludes that relief is not available on plaintiff's claims challenging the administration of the CDSOA by the two agencies. We also conclude that no relief can be granted on Standard's claims challenging the CDSOA on First Amendment and Fifth Amendment equal protection grounds. Plaintiff lacks standing to assert the claims it bases on Fifth Amendment due process grounds. Finally, plaintiff does not satisfy the standards for obtaining the injunction it seeks. The court will enter judgment dismissing this action.

I. Background

During a 2003 ITC investigation to determine whether imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China were causing or threatening to cause material injury to the domestic industry, Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 68 Fed.Reg. 70,228, 70,231 (Dec. 17, 2003), Standard responded to the ITC's questionnaires, indicating that it opposed the issuance of an antidumping duty order. See, e.g., First Amended Compl. ¶ 19 (Mar. 23, 2011), ECF No. 81. Based on the affirmative ITC injury determination, the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”) issued the antidumping duty order on imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China in 2005. Antidumping Duty Order, 70 Fed.Reg. at 329. Determining that Standard had not supported the petition so as to qualify it for CDSOA benefits, ITC declined to place Standard on the list of potential ADPs with respect to this order for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010. Distribution of Continued Dumping & Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers, 71 Fed.Reg. 31,336, 31,375–76 (June 1, 2006); Distribution of Continued Dumping & Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers, 72 Fed.Reg. 29,582, 29,622–23 (May 29, 2007); Distribution of Continued Dumping & Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers, 73 Fed.Reg. 31,196, 31,236–37 (May 30, 2008); Distribution of Continued Dumping & Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers, 74 Fed.Reg. 25,814, 25,855–56 (May 29, 2009); Distribution of Continued Dumping & Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers, 75 Fed.Reg. 30,530, 30,571–72 (June 1, 2010).

Plaintiff filed actions contesting the government's refusal to provide it CDSOA distributions of antidumping duties collected during Fiscal Years 2006 ( Court No. 07–00028), 2007 (Court No. 07–00295), 2008 (Court No. 09–00027), and 20092010 (Court No. 10–00082). The court stayed the four actions pending a final resolution of other litigation raising the same or similar issues.4 See, e.g., Order (June 11, 2007), ECF No. 37.

Following the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Court of Appeals”) in SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 556 F.3d 1337 (2009) (“ SKF ”), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 3273, 176 L.Ed.2d 1182 (2010), which addressed legal questions also present in this case, the court issued an order directing Standard to show why these actions should not be dismissed and lifted the stay for the purposes of allowing any brief, response, or reply described in that order. See, e.g., Order (Jan. 3, 2011), ECF No. 45. On February 1, 2011, plaintiff responded to the court's order and moved for a partial lift of the stay to allow amendment of the complaints in Court Nos. 07–00028 and 07–00295 as a matter of course to add an additional count challenging the CDSOA under the First Amendment as applied to Standard. See, e.g., Pl.'s Br. in Resp. to the Ct.'s Order to Show Cause (Feb. 1, 2011), ECF No. 50 (“Pl.'s Br.”); Mot. for Leave to Amend Compl. (Jan. 24, 2011), ECF No. 47; Proposed First Am. Compl. ¶ 50 (Jan. 24, 2011), ECF No. 47; Mot. for Leave to Amend Compl. (Jan. 24, 2011), ECF...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 12 Julio 2012
    ...litigation, must receive a level of judicial scrutiny higher than that applied in SKF. See Standard Furniture Mfg. Co. v. United States, 36 CIT ––––, ––––, 823 F.Supp.2d 1327, 1338–39 (2012) (concluding that Snyder did not compel a First Amendment analysis differing from that which was appl......
  • United Synthetics, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 20 Abril 2012
    ...litigation, must receive a level of judicial scrutiny higher than that applied in SKF II. See Standard Furniture Mfg. Co. v. United States, 36 CIT ––––, ––––, 823 F.Supp.2d 1327, 1338–39 (2012) (finding that Snyder did not compel a First Amendment analysis differing from that which was appl......
  • Tampa Bay Fisheries, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 12–37.Court No. 08–00404.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 20 Marzo 2012
    ...litigation, must receive a level of judicial scrutiny higher than that applied in SKF. See Standard Furniture Mfg. Co. v. United States, 36 CIT ––––, ––––, 823 F.Supp.2d 1327, 1338–39 (2012) (finding that Snyder did not compel a First Amendment analysis differing from that which was applied......
  • Koyo Corp. of U.S.A. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 13 Marzo 2013
    ...of commercial speech that differs from that applied to the CDSOA in SKF USA II. See, e.g., Standard Furniture Mfg. Co. v. United States, 36 CIT ––––, –––– – ––––, 823 F.Supp.2d 1327, 1338–42 (2012). As to its as-applied challenges, Plaintiff is no differently situated than the plaintiff in ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT