867 F. Supp. 2d 1302
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC in 2005.
- Marvin sought a new shipper review (NSR) for its June 2011 entries to obtain an individual rate.
- Marvin’s Initiation Request claimed no prior exports of subject merchandise before June 2011; Commerce asked CBP to verify.
- CBP identified September 2010 Marvin entries; Marvin later acknowledged these were subject merchandise but claimed duties were exempt.
- Commerce preliminarily and finally rescinded the NSR, finding Marvin’s initiation lacked the date and volume documentation required by 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(b)(2).
- Marvin argued it complied with eligibility and that § 1677m allowed correction of erroneous information; the Government and AFMC argued the initiation was infirm and properly rescinded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Commerce's NSR rescission proper based on initiation deficiencies? | Marvin: initiation met eligibility; early error should be correctable. | Commerce: initiation lacked date/volume data; prudent rescission supported by regulations. | Yes; rescission supported by record and law. |
| Does § 1677m apply to correct initiation information in this NSR context? | Marvin: § 1677m allows correction of erroneous submissions. | § 1677m applies to corrections in response to a request for information, not unsolicited NSR initiations. | Inapplicable; court does not disturb rescission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (substantial evidence and deference standards in agency review)
- Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency interpretations defer under Chevron framework)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (court defers to agency determinations when reasonable)
- Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 649 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (guidelines for reviewing agency statutory interpretations)
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 495 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (deference to agency interpretations in statutory context)