CIT Denies Furniture Makers’ Bid for CDSOA Duties

Domestic furniture producers Ethan Allen Global, Inc. and Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. sued to gain a share of duties collected under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Act of 2000 (“Byrd Amendment,” or “CDSOA“), but the court dismissed their complaints.

In the 2003 investigation by the International Trade Commission that led to the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China, Ethan Allen responded to an International Trade Commission questionnaire indicating that it “took no position on the petition.“ As a result, the ITC declined to designate Ethan Allen as an “affected domestic producer” or ADP, which would have qualified the firm to receive a portion of AD duties collected under the AD order on subject merchandise.

The Court of International Trade dismissed Ethan Allen’s claims, citing the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling that the CDSOA’s “petition support requirement” did not violate First Amendment and Equal Protection rights. The CIT noted that the CAFC had found that it was “rational for Congress to conclude that those who did not support the petition should not be rewarded."

Responding to several Supreme Court First Amendment cases cited by the plaintiffs, the CIT distinguished the petition support requirement of the Byrd Amendment, noting that “the CDSOA does not criminalize or otherwise prohibit a broad category of speech.”

(See ITT's Online Archives 12011849 and 12010512 for summaries of the Court of International Trade denying two separate domestic manufacturers' bids for Byrd Amendment duties.)

(Slip Op. 12-10, dated 01/20/12)