Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States
195 F. Supp. 3d 1324
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2016Background
- Commerce issued final results (2013–2014 review) for multilayered wood flooring from the PRC setting a weighted-average dumping margin of 17.37% (Final Results, July 19, 2016).
- Fine Furniture (selected mandatory respondent) timely sued Commerce challenging surrogate country selection, financial ratios, and surrogate values; the Court granted Fine Furniture a preliminary injunction against liquidation of its entries.
- Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) — a separate-rate respondent — timely moved to intervene and sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin liquidation of its unliquidated entries covered by the same administrative review.
- The Government opposed Armstrong’s injunction on two main grounds: (1) the injunction would impermissibly enlarge the issues in Fine Furniture’s complaint; and (2) Armstrong’s request was untimely because it did not file its own separate challenge to the Final Results.
- The Court found Armstrong’s intervention timely under USCIT rules, held that seeking to preserve liquidation for entries subject to the same administrative review does not enlarge the case, and granted Armstrong’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an intervenor may seek an injunction to bar liquidation of its entries not listed in the plaintiff’s complaint | Armstrong: it seeks only the same prospective benefit as plaintiff for entries subject to the same review; no new substantive issues | Gov’t: allowing injunction would enlarge the issues beyond plaintiff’s complaint | Court: permitted — preserving additional entries under the same administrative review does not enlarge the case |
| Whether Armstrong’s request is untimely because it did not file its own complaint | Armstrong: timely intervened and Rule 56.2 allows a timely intervenor to move for injunction | Gov’t: Armstrong missed the statutory deadline to sue and should not “piggyback” via intervention | Court: intervention was timely; Rules permit an intervenor to seek injunctive relief regardless of whether it filed its own complaint |
| Whether Armstrong established irreparable harm and other injunctive factors | Armstrong: liquidation before judgment would irretrievably bar recovery; serious questions on merits; public interest and balance of hardships favor injunction | Gov’t: did not contest equitable factors substantively | Court: Armstrong satisfied irreparable harm, likelihood of success (tied to plaintiff), public interest, and balance of hardships; injunction warranted |
| Scope and effect of preliminary injunction sought | Armstrong: enjoin liquidation of its unliquidated entries covered by the 2013–2014 review through litigation and appeal | Gov’t: objected to protecting entries not in complaint and to timeliness | Court: enjoined liquidation of Armstrong’s entries in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2); directed parties to submit a proposed injunction order |
Key Cases Cited
- Qingdao Taifa Grp. Co. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (CIT may enjoin liquidation to preserve review rights)
- Union Steel v. United States, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009) (intervenor may obtain injunction to protect entries from same review; no enlargement)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
- Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. v. United States, 11 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (intervenor preserving entries does not expand issues)
- NSK Corp. v. United States, 547 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (bringing additional entries does not equal enlargement)
- Parkdale Int’l v. United States, 475 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Commerce must calculate dumping margins accurately)