A recent United States Court of International Trade case is Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. v. United States. In the case, the plaintiff was the Marvin Furniture, while the defendant was the United States. The case involved efforts by the plaintiff to withdraw the decision made during the Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. v. United States, 36 CIT, 867 F. Supp. 2d 1302, whereby the court found Marvin to be responsible importer of goods that had entered US but were not reported, hence resulting to rescission. The bases of defendant was that the plaintiff had failed to disclose it first exports into US as required by the United States laws.
In efforts to justice its case, the plaintiff made references to the plaintiff entries which Marvin claimed to have been incorrect during Marvin 1 case. The plaintiff claims the entries were not correct because the imports were made by an importer who was a third party but was an importer of record during the 2010 September entries.
Several issues arose during case. Among them was whether the United States Court of International Trade should use it powers as defined by USCIT R. 59 to correct the flaw that had occurred during the original court. The flaws revolved around the use of the word ‘entries’ when referring to the goods imported by Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. the other issue that arose was the court to reconsider the importance revisiting the arguments presented by the plaintiff during the original court hearing in reference to evident erroneous decision that had been made during the original court hearing.
The court ruling was that the motion to have the rescission of the original ruling was denied. The argument behind the court was that there was gross mischaracterization of language by the plaintiff during the original court proceedings. According the court, the term ‘entries’ was used within the United States Court of International Trade discretion to refer to several exporters, even though not any plays role of an importer of record. As a result the United States Court of International Trade did not find any miscalculation in the initial court proceedings that could make it necessary for the court to find it worth for the court to revisit its original ruling. Other arguments presented by the plaintiff were not considered because the appeal mainly focused on the language and use of the word ‘entries and the engagement of the third party (Triple Play Service) played the role of the importer of record (United States Court of International Trade, 2013).
In reference to the case, the decision to withhold the original court decision was justified decision. This is because the plaintiff did not prove beyond reasonable doubts that the original ruling was manifestly erroneous. The use of the words entries in reference to the products imported into US did was justified by the United States Court of International Trade because it had been used in previous times when referring to goods that had entered United States from other economies like the case of Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 35 CIT. the other argument presented by Marvin were similar to the ones presented in Marvin 1. Upholding the original ruling was critical in safeguarding the US economy against dumping by other economies.
References
United States Court of International Trade. (2013). Marvin Furniture (Shanghai) Co. v. United States. Retrieved November 2013, from www.cit.uscourts.gov/SlipOpinions/Slip_op12/12-109.pdf
