Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United States , 2016 CIT 19 ( 2016 )

Slip Op. 16- 19
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
ETHAN ALLEN OPERATIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
HOME MERIDIAN INTERNATIONAL,
INC., CITY FURNITURE, INC., HOOKER
FURNITURE CORPORATION, and STEIN
WORLD OPERATING COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge
v.
Court No. 14-00147
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
AMERICAN FURNITURE
MANUFACTURERS COMMITTEE FOR
LEGAL TRADE and VAUGHAN-BASSETT
FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant-Intervenors.
OPINION
[Commerce’s second remand results are sustained.]
Dated: February 29, 2016
Yohai Baisburd, and Daniel Morris, Dentons US LLP, and Gregory J. Spak, White &
Case, LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff.
Kristin H. Mowry, Jeffrey S. Grimson, Jill A. Cramer, and Sarah M. Wyss, Mowry &
Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff-intervenors.
Douglas G. Edelschick, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With him on the brief were
Court No. 14-00147 Page 2
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and
Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Scott D. McBride, Senior
Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department
of Commerce, of Washington, DC.
J. Michael Taylor and Daniel L. Schneiderman, King & Spalding, LLP, of Washington,
DC, for defendant-intervenors.
Restani, Judge: This matter is before the court following a remand to the United States
Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United States, Slip
Op. 15-134, 2015 WL 7746717 (CIT Dec. 1, 2015) (“Ethan Allen”). Familiarity with that
decision is presumed. In Ethan Allen, the court determined that the factors codified at 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.225(k)(1) (2014) (“(k)(1) factors”) were non-dispositive for three of the wooden chests—
the Marlene, Nadine, and Serpentine chests—for which Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. (“Ethan
Allen”) requested a scope ruling, and the court remanded to Commerce to consider the factors
codified at 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2) (“(k)(2) factors”) for those three chests. 2015 WL
7746717, at *6. The court also determined that for the fourth chest—the Vivica chest—the
(k)(1) factors were dispositive to “demonstrate that the Vivica chest is not within the scope” of
the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture (“WBF”). Id. at *7; see also Notice of
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order:
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China,70 Fed. Reg. 329, 329 (Dep’t
Commerce Jan. 4, 2005) (“WBF Order”). The court then remanded for Ethan Allen to “complete
the record,” so that Commerce could properly consider whether its liquidation instructions were
lawful. Ethan Allen, 2015 WL 7746717, at *8–9.
On remand, Commerce evaluated each of the (k)(2) factors for the Marlene, Nadine, and
Serpentine chests and ultimately concluded “that the weight of the record evidence supports a
determination that the Nadine, Marlene, and Serpentine chests are not covered by the scope of
Court No. 14-00147 Page 3
the WBF Order.” Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Order 9–14, ECF No. 56-1
(“Second Remand Results”). Commerce also determined that pursuant to the (k)(1) factors that
“Ethan Allen’s Vivica chest is not wooden bedroom furniture subject to the WBF Order.” Id. at
8. As a result of these determinations, Commerce correctly recognized that the last issue
regarding the lawfulness of Commerce’s liquidation instructions “has been mooted.” Id. at 15.
Commerce has complied with the court’s remand order in Ethan Allen to reconsider its
treatment of Ethan Allen’s four wooden chests at issue, and no party challenges Commerce’s
Second Remand Results. See Joint Status Report 1–2, ECF No. 58 (“The Parties . . . agree that
the [Second Remand Results] comply with the Remand Order. . . . [and] propose that the Court
. . . proceed[] to final disposition of the matter.”).
For the foregoing reasons, Commerce’s Second Remand Results are sustained. Judgment
will issue accordingly.
/s/ Jane A. Restani
Jane A. Restani
Judge
Dated: February 29, 2016
New York, New York