31 Ct. Int'l Trade 200 477 F. Supp. 2d 1278

477 F.Supp.2d 1278

Fairmont Designs, Inc., Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd. Plaintiffs, v. United States, Defendant, American Furniture Mfrs. Comm. for Legal Trade Defendant-Intervenors

Court No. 06-00249

Dated: February 14, 2007

Miller & Chevalier Chartered {Peter J. Koenig, Daniel P. Wendt) for Plaintiffs.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne Davidson, Acting Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Michael D. Panzera); Natasha C. Robinson, Attorney, Of Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, for the Defendant.

King & Spalding, LLP (Joseph W. Dorn, Stephen A. Jones, Jeffrey M. Telep, J. Michael Taylor) for the Defendant-Intervenor.

OPINION AND ORDER

POGUE, Judge:

The matter before the court is, in all material respects save for one, identical to the companion case before the court *201in American Signature, Inc. v. United States, 31 CIT _, Slip Op. 07-20 (Feb. 14, 200T)(“American Signature’Ó.1 The only difference between the two cases is that during the investigation, Fairmont requested that Commerce issue instructions to Customs to retroactively assess duties at the amended rate, and to return all excess cash deposits and release all excess bonds immediately.2 See Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 67,317. American Signature requested such a retroactive assessment after the conclusion of the investigation. See American Signature, 31 CIT _, _, Slip Op. 07-20 at 7, 12-13. The difference, however, is not material.

In the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” for the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China that accompanied and was adopted by the Final Determination, Commerce rejected Fairmont’s request that Commerce instruct Customs to assess duties at the newly amended rate which had been corrected for ministerial errors, not only prospectively but retrospectively (for the period of June 24, 2004 through September 9, 2004). Memorandum from James H. Jochum *202to Jeffrey A. May, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the LeSs-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, at 231-233 (Cmt. 33), Dep’t of Commerce (November 8, 2004), Amended Public Record Ex. 5, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/04-25507-l.pdf. Fairmont could have challenged that determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c)3, and as such, cannot properly bring this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). See Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States, 963 F. 2d 356, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(jurisdiction is not available under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) when “jurisdiction under another subsection of § 1581 is or could have been available, unless the remedy provided under that other subsection would be manifestly inadequate.”) (emphasis in original); see also Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States Appeal Nos. 06-1044, 06-1052, at 14—16 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2006)(an analysis of jurisdiction requires determination of the “true nature of the action in district court.”). This case is therefore controlled by the court’s decision in American Signature. Accordingly, the court grants Defendant’s motion and dismisses Plaintiff’s claim, in accordance with USCIT R. 12(b)(1), and dissolves the preliminary injunction. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Fairmont Designs, Inc. v. United States
31 Ct. Int'l Trade 200 477 F. Supp. 2d 1278

Case Details

Name
Fairmont Designs, Inc. v. United States
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2007
Citations

31 Ct. Int'l Trade 200

477 F. Supp. 2d 1278

Jurisdiction
United States

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!