34 F. Supp. 3d 1355
Ct. Int'l Trade2014Background
- Movants (Korean producers/exporters of oil country tubular goods) challenged Commerce’s Final Determination in the antidumping investigation covering OCTG from Korea and sought injunctions to enjoin liquidation of certain unliquidated entries.
- The Final Determination set antidumping rates that served as cash deposit/assessment rates; movants contend liquidation would moot their judicial challenges.
- Defendant (United States) consented to the injunction motions; domestic producer defendant-intervenors U.S. Steel and Maverick opposed.
- The court has statutory authority to enjoin liquidation under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2) to preserve the status quo pending judicial review; the court applies a four-factor test (irreparable harm, likelihood of success, balance of equities, public interest).
- Key timing considerations: administrative reviews now occur only on request; Commerce may liquidate at investigation rates if no review is requested; Commerce’s 15-day practice for issuing liquidation instructions can sharply limit time to seek an injunction.
- The Court granted the injunctions, finding movants face irreparable harm, raised substantial questions on the merits, the equities favor injunction, and the public interest supports judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether liquidation should be enjoined to preserve judicial review | Liquidation would irreparably moot challenges; injunction needed now to protect rights | No immediate threat because Commerce won’t issue liquidation instructions until after any administrative review (about a year), so injunction premature | Granted — injunction appropriate now to prevent mootness and protect review rights |
| Immediacy of irreparable harm | Harm is present because investigation rates can be used for final assessment if no review requested; 15-day instruction practice risks swift liquidation | Harm not sufficiently imminent to justify early injunction because liquidation unlikely before administrative review | Granted — court finds sufficiently imminent and serious harm given current law and Commerce practices |
| Likelihood of success on the merits | Movants raised serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful questions warranting review | U.S. Steel/Maverick argued movants’ claims were weak (but cited no controlling authority showing claims frivolous) | Granted — movants have at least a fair chance; burden relaxed where irreparable harm strong |
| Balance of equities & public interest | Equities tip to movants: deposits continue so government/domestic producers not meaningfully harmed; public interest favors judicial review and correct administration of trade laws | Domestic producers argued against injunction but did not show prejudice from delay | Granted — equities and public interest favor injunction; government consented, opponents failed to show harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806 (Fed. Cir.) (liquidation can irreparably moot judicial review)
- Ugine & ALZ Belg. v. United States, 452 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir.) (four-factor test and sliding-scale approach for injunctions)
- Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 741 F.3d 89 (Fed. Cir.) (preliminary injunctions against liquidation common in AD/CVD cases due to retrospective remedies)
- Corus Grp. PLC v. Bush, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (CIT) (discussion of injunction factors and sliding scale)
- Nmb Sing. v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (CIT) (raising substantial questions suffices when irreparable harm established)