Slip Op. 15-34

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

HOME MERIDIAN INTERNATIONAL,

INC. D/B/A SAMUEL LAWRENCE

FURNITURE CO. D/B/A PULASKI

FURNITURE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

GREAT RICH (HK) ENTERPRISES CO.,

LTD., DONGGUAN LIAOBUSHANGDUN

HUADA FURNITURE FACTORY, NANHAI

BAIYI WOODWORK CO., LTD., and

DALIAN HUAFENG FURNITURE GROUP

CO., LTD.,

Consolidated Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant,

AMERICAN FURNITURE

MANUFACTURERS COMMITTEE FOR

LEGAL TRADE and VAUGHAN-BASSETT

FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant-Intervenors.

Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge

Consol. Court No. 11-00325

OPINION AND ORDER

[Final Results of Redetermination in antidumping administrative review sustained.]

Dated: April 21, 2015

Kristin H. Mowry, Daniel R. Wilson, Jeffrey S. Grimson, Jill A. Cramer, Rebecca M.

Janz, and Sarah M. Wyss, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff and

consolidated plaintiffs Great Rich (HK) Enterprises Co., Ltd. and Dongguan Liaobushangdun

Huada Furniture Factory.
Consol. Court No. 11-00325 Page 2

Ned H. Marshak, Bruce M. Mitchell, and Mark E. Pardo, Grunfeld Desiderio Lebowitz

Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, of New York, NY, and Washington, DC, for consolidated plaintiff

Nanhai Baiyi Woodwork Co., Ltd.

Lizbeth R. Levinson and Ronald M. Wisla, Kutak Rock LLP, of Washington, DC, for

consolidated plaintiff Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd.

Carrie A. Dunsmore, Joshua E. Kurland, and Stephen C. Tosini, Trial Attorneys,

Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC,

for defendant. Of counsel were Shana A. Hofstetter and Justin R. Becker, Office of the Chief

Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington,

DC.

J. Michael Taylor, Daniel L. Schneiderman, Joseph W. Dorn, Mark T. Wasden, and

Prentiss L. Smith, King & Spalding, LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors.

Restani, Judge: This matter is before the court following a remand to the Department of

Commerce (“Commerce”) ordered after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”)

issued its mandate in Home Meridian International, Inc. v. United States, 772 F.3d 1289 (Fed.

Cir. 2014). The CAFC vacated Commerce’s remand results filed pursuant to the Court of

International Trade’s (“CIT”) decision in Home Meridian International, Inc. v. United States,

922 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (CIT 2013) (“Home Meridian II”), and directed the CIT to reinstate

Commerce’s valuation in the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, ECF

No. 96 (“First Remand Results”). Because at least one issue decided after the First Remand

Results was not appealed, the court inquired of the parties as to the proper procedure to

implement the CAFC’s ruling. The parties determined that a remand was warranted in order to

comply with the spirit of the CAFC’s mandate while maintaining the determinations sustained by

the CIT on the issue not appealed to the CAFC. The court thus ordered the parties to determine

which aspects of the Final Results of Second Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, ECF No.

130 (sustained in Home Meridian II), continued to be valid in the light of the CAFC’s decision. 
Consol. Court No. 11-00325 Page 3

Commerce issued the remand results now before the court in accordance with that order. Final

Results of Third Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, ECF No. 157 (“Third Remand

Results”). No party objects to the procedure utilized to comply with the CAFC’s mandate, and

no objections have been raised as to the substance of the Third Remand Results. Accordingly, as

Commerce properly complied with both the CAFC decision as well as the court’s order

regarding any issue not appealed, the Third Remand Results are sustained. Judgment will issue

accordingly.

 /s/ Jane A. Restani

 Jane A. Restani

 Judge

Dated: April 21, 2015

New York, New York