Home Products International, Inc. v. United States

CORRECTED ORDER
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee,
AND
SINCE HARDWARE (GUANGZHOU) CO. LTD.,
Defendant-Appellee.

2010-1194

Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in case no. 07-CV-0123, Judge Leo M. Gordon.

ON MOTION

Before GAJARSA, MAYER and PROST, Circuit Judges.
GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="HOME PRODUCTS v. US" -->

Home Products International, Inc. (Home Products)
moves to summarily reverse the judgment of the United
States Court of International Trade in this case due to
this court's recent decision in Home Prods. Int'l, Inc v.
United States, 633 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (hereinafter
Home Prods. I) and to remand for further proceedings.
The United States does not oppose summary disposition
but moves for vacatur rather than reversal. Home Prod-
ucts replies.

This appeal concerns an antidumping duty order cov-
ering floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain
parts thereof from the People's Republic of China. Com-
merce determined that Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co.
Ltd. (Since Hardware) and other Chinese exporters were
selling ironing tables in the United States at less than
fair value, and the International Trade Commission found
material injury. Thereafter, in the first and second
administrative reviews of that antidumping order, Com-
merce calculated dumping margins for Since Hardware.
Because the agency considered those margin percentage
determinations de minimis, Commerce did not impose any
antidumping duties on Since Hardware for these review
periods.

Home Products, an American manufacturer of iron
tables, initiated actions in the Trade Court challenging
the results of Commerce's first and second administrative
review. This appeal stems from Home Products challenge
to Commerce's first administrative review, while Home
Products' appeal from the Trade Court's decision in the
second administrative review gave rise to Home Prods. I.

While these challenges were pending, Commerce con-
ducted its third administrative review of the same anti-
dumping order. During that proceeding, new evidence
was brought to light that indicated Since Hardware had

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="HOME PRODUCTS v. US" -->

submitted falsified documents to Commerce during the
third administrative review. Commerce concluded that
the documents were unreliable. Commerce also found
that documents provided by Since Hardware in the course
of the first and second administrative reviews were also
falsified.

Based on Commerce's findings, Home Products moved
the Trade Court to amend its complaints and to remand
the cases to Commerce for reconsideration in light of the
new evidence of falsification. The Trade Court denied the
motions, and thereafter issued final judgments in favor of
the United States in both Home Products challenges to
the first and second administrative review. Home Prod-
ucts appealed both rulings in its appeals of the Trade
Court's final judgments. This court stayed the briefing
schedule in this appeal pending this court's disposition in
Home Prods. I.

In Home Prods. I, this court reversed the Court of In-
ternational Trade's decision, concluding that the Court of
International Trade abused its discretion by failing to
remand the case to Commerce where Home Products
produced clear and convincing evidence that the proceed-
ing below was tainted by material fraud. We agree with
the parties that because this matter is controlled by Home
Prods. I, summary disposition is appropriate. See Joshua
v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Sum-
mary disposition "is appropriate, inter alia, when the
position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of
law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of
the appeal exists.").

In Home Prods. I, this Court determined on essen-
tially identical circumstances that the appropriate rem-
edy was to reverse the judgment of the Trade Court and
remand with instructions that the Trade Court remand

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="HOME PRODUCTS v. US" -->

this case to Commerce for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion in order to secure the views of the
agency itself. While the United States moves instead for
vacatur, it has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating
why a different and extraordinary remedy should be
applied in this case. See generally U.S. Bancorp Mortg.
Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994) (placing
the burden on the movant to demonstrate entitlement to
the "extraordinary remedy of vacatur.").

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Home Products' motion for summary reversal and
remand is granted.

(2) The United States' motion to vacate and remand
is denied.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

JUN 2 3 2011

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Frederick L. Ikenson, Esq.
Ronald M. Wisla, Esq.
David S. Silverbrand, Esq.

s20

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
JUN 23 2011

JAN HORBALY
CLERK