New Mexico Garlic Growers Coalition v. United States
2017 CIT 121
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Commerce issued final results in the 2014–2015 antidumping administrative review of fresh garlic from China on June 14, 2017. Several Chinese exporters/producers were assigned rates; Xinboda received a calculated rate.
- Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co. (QTF) immediately challenged the Final Results in Court No. 17-00166 and obtained a preliminary injunction on July 11, 2017.
- Shandong Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Zhengyang) and Jining Alpha Food Co., Ltd. (Alpha) moved to intervene and sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin liquidation of their unliquidated garlic entries during the review period. Shenzhen Xinboda sought intervention but was denied.
- Defendant (the United States) opposed the injunctive relief on procedural grounds, arguing intervenors may not enlarge the issues in the case and that Rule 56.2(a) limits injunctive relief to entries identified in the complaint.
- The court granted Zhengyang and Alpha’s motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining liquidation of their unliquidated entries entered/withdrawn for consumption Nov. 1, 2014–Oct. 31, 2015, pending final judicial disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff‑intervenors may obtain a preliminary injunction to bar liquidation of their unliquidated entries | Intervenors may seek injunctive relief concurrent with intervention to preserve entries for judicial review | Intervenors cannot enlarge the action; injunctive relief limited to entries "the subject of the action" as identified in the complaint | Court: intervenors may obtain injunctive relief; grant for Zhengyang and Alpha (Xinboda denied) |
| Proper reading of USCIT Rule 56.2(a) re: who may seek preliminary injunctions and timing | Rule permits intervenors to move for injunctions within prescribed post‑intervention deadlines; delaying would render intervention meaningless | Rule’s language limits injunctive relief to entries identified in complaint and plaintiffs only | Court: Rule construed to allow intervenor injunctive motions; timing provisions do not limit scope of relief |
| Likelihood of success on the merits (merits tied to lead plaintiff QTF) | Success likelihood tied to QTF’s already‑granted preliminary injunction; intervenors share that likelihood | Implicitly disputed but not relied upon as primary basis of opposition | Court: enough likelihood of success because QTF demonstrated sufficient likelihood; intervenors’ prospects tied to QTF |
| Irreparable harm and equities/public interest | Liquidation would permanently deprive intervenors of any refund if litigation succeeds; equities/public interest favor preserving review | Government will be prejudiced by expanding requests and administrative burden | Court: irreparable harm shown; balance and public interest favor injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Qingdao Taifa Grp. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.) (CIT may enjoin liquidation to preserve review rights)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (four‑factor preliminary injunction test; extraordinary remedy)
- Vinson v. Washington Gas Light Co., 321 U.S. 489 (U.S.) (intervenor must not enlarge pending issues)
- Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1324 (Ct. Int’l Trade) (intervenor injunctions do not expand scope of action; preserves covered entries)
- Belgium v. United States, 452 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir.) (irreparable injury is a crucial injunction factor)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Int’l Trade) (public interest favors ensuring Commerce complies with law)