Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd. v. United States

Court of International Trade

Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd. v. United States

425 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 30 Ct. Int'l Trade 374

CourtUnited States Court of International Trade

DecidedApril 5, 2006

DocketSlip Op. 06-44; Court 05-00065

StatusPublished

This text of 425 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd. v. United States, 425 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 30 Ct. Int'l Trade 374 (cit 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

POGUE, Judge.

In Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg. 67,313 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 17, 2004) (notice of final determination of sales at less than fair market value and anti-dumping duty order) and its corresponding “Issues & Decision Memorandum” dated November 4, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) rejected as untimely certain submissions from Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd., Pyla HK Ltd., and Maria Yee Inc. (collectively “Maria Yee”) and, therefore, assessed Maria Yee the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) -wide cash deposit rate of 198.08%. Maria Yee timely appealed that determination averring that it was improperly denied the separate rate of 6.65%. On December 14, 2005, this court found unlawful Commerce’s assessment of the PRC-wide cash deposit rate, based upon Commerce’s unreasonable reliance on notice to be provided through the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), and remanded the issue to Commerce for reconsideration. Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd. v. United States, 412 F.Supp.2d 1301, 29 CIT-(2005).

Pursuant to that remand order, Commerce issued a remand determination on March 1, 2006, in which it considered Maria Yee’s evidence. Commerce determined that Maria Yee did qualify for separate-rate treatment, in accordance with the court’s decision, and specifically was qualified for the 6.65% separate rate.

This court, having received and reviewed Commerce’s Remand Results, comments and rebuttals thereto, finds that Commerce duly complied with the court’s remand order. Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Department of Commerce’s remand determination is supported by substantial evidence, and otherwise in accordance with law; and it is further

ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on March 1, 2006 are affirmed in their entirety.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

POGUE, Judge.

In Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg. 67,313 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 17, 2004) (notice of final determination of sales at less than fair market value and anti-dumping duty order) and its corresponding “Issues & Decision Memorandum” dated November 4, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) rejected as untimely certain submissions from Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd., Pyla HK Ltd., and Maria Yee Inc. (collectively “Maria Yee”) and, therefore, assessed Maria Yee the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) -wide cash deposit rate of 198.08%. Maria Yee timely appealed that determination averring that it was improperly denied the separate rate of 6.65%. On December 14, 2005, this court found unlawful Commerce’s assessment of the PRC-wide cash deposit rate, based upon Commerce’s unreasonable reliance on notice to be provided through the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), and remanded the issue to Commerce for reconsideration. Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd. v. United States, 412 F.Supp.2d 1301, 29 CIT-(2005).

Pursuant to that remand order, Commerce issued a remand determination on March 1, 2006, in which it considered Maria Yee’s evidence. Commerce determined that Maria Yee did qualify for separate-rate treatment, in accordance with the court’s decision, and specifically was qualified for the 6.65% separate rate.

This court, having received and reviewed Commerce’s Remand Results, comments and rebuttals thereto, finds that Commerce duly complied with the court’s remand order. Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Department of Commerce’s remand determination is supported by substantial evidence, and otherwise in accordance with law; and it is further

ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on March 1, 2006 are affirmed in their entirety.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 30 Ct. Int'l Trade 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guangzhou-maria-yee-furnishings-ltd-v-united-states-cit-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack