Foshan Yixin Stone Company Limited v. United States

Slip Op. 21-140
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
M S INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
and
FOSHAN YIXIN STONE COMPANY LIMITED,
Consolidated Plaintiff,
and
ARIZONA TILE LLC,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
CAMBRIA COMPANY LLC,
Defendant-Intervenor.
Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge
Consol. Court No. 19-00140
OPINION
Dated: October 8, 2021
Jonathan T. Stoel, Craig A. Lewis, Jared R. Wessel, and Nicholas R. Sparks,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff M S International, Inc. and
Plaintiff-Intervenor Arizona Tile LLC.
Case 1:19-cv-00138-LMG Document 34 Filed 10/08/21 Page 1 of 4

Consol. Court No. 19-00140 	Page 2
David J. Craven, Craven Trade Law LLC, of Chicago, IL, for Consolidated Plaintiff
Bruskin International, LLC.
Matthew T. McGrath, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, LLP, of Washington, D.C.,
for Consolidated Plaintiff Foshan Yixin Stone Company, Ltd.
Joshua E. Kurland, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. With him
on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director, and Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director. Of counsel was Jesus Saenz,
Attorney, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement
and Compliance, of Washington, D.C.
Luke A. Meisner, Kelsey M. Rule, and Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates,
of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor Cambria Company LLC.
Gordon, Judge: Recently the court issued an opinion denying a challenge to the
antidumping (“AD”) duty margin assigned to Consolidated Plaintiff Foshan Yixin Stone
Company, Ltd. (“Yixin”) by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in its final
determination 	of 	the 	antidumping 	investigation 	of 	certain 	quartz 	surface 	products
(“QSPs”) from the People’s Republic of China. See M S Int’l v. United States, 45 CIT ___,
Slip Op. 21-130 (Sep. 24, 2021), ECF No. 92; see also Certain Quartz Surface Products
from the People’s Republic of China, 84 Fed. Reg. 23,767 (Dep’t of Commerce May 23,
2019) (“Final Determination”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, A-
570-084 	(Dep’t 	of 	Commerce 	May 	14, 	2019),
https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/prc/2019-10800-1.pdf (last visited this date).
While Yixin’s challenge was consolidated with other parties’ challenges to Commerce’s
final affirmative determination in its investigation of QSPs from China, Yixin was the only
party to challenge its margin calculation. 	See Consol. Pl. Yixin Mem. in Supp. of Rule
56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 49 (“Yixisn Br.”). 	Given that the court has
Case 1:19-cv-00138-LMG Document 34 Filed 10/08/21 Page 2 of 4

Consol. Court No. 19-00140 	Page 3
decided this issue, the question is whether the court should enter a partial judgment
pursuant to USCIT Rule 54(b), sustaining Commerce’s margin calculation for Yixin.
For the reasons set forth below, the court will enter a Rule 54(b) partial judgment.
Rule 54(b) provides in part that:
[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a
claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim—or when multiple
parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one
or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly
determines that there is no just reason for delay.
USCIT R. 54(b). 	Rule 54(b) requires finality—“an ultimate disposition of an individual
claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey,
351 U.S. 427, 436 (1956). Additionally, in evaluating whether there is no just reason for
delay, the court examines whether the concern for avoiding piecemeal litigation is
outweighed by considerations favoring immediate entry of judgment. 	See Timken v.
Regan, 5 CIT 4, 6 (1983).
Here, Yixin’s brief solely challenged Commerce’s calculation of its dumping margin
in the Final Determination. 	See generally Yixin Br. 	What remains for adjudication is a
challenge by M S International and Arizona Tile to Commerce’s finding of industry support
to initiate the underlying investigation. See Pl. M S International, Inc.’s & Pl.-Int. Arizona
Tile LLC’s Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 48. 	As Yixin did not raise or join that
issue, the court’s decision in this matter provides “an ultimate disposition” as to Yixin’s
challenge to the Final Determination. See Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 U.S. at 436; see
also M S Int’l v. United States, 45 CIT ___, Slip Op. 21-130 (Sep. 24, 2021).
Case 1:19-cv-00138-LMG Document 34 Filed 10/08/21 Page 3 of 4

Consol. Court No. 19-00140 	Page 4
The entry of a Rule 54(b) partial judgment would serve the interests of the parties
and the administration of justice by bringing this issue, and Yixin’s role in this litigation, to
a conclusion. 	Partial judgment would also give Yixin the opportunity to immediately
appeal if it so chooses. Moreover, there is no threat of piecemeal judicial review as the
resolution of the remaining issues presented by the other Plaintiffs does not implicate the
final disposition of the Final Determination challenge raised by Yixin. Therefore, the court
has no just reason for delay.
Based on the foregoing, the court will enter partial judgment pursuant to USCIT
Rule 54(b).
/s/ Leo M. Gordon
Judge Leo M. Gordon
Dated: October 8, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:19-cv-00138-LMG Document 34 Filed 10/08/21 Page 4 of 4