2018 CIT 109
Ct. Int'l Trade2018Background
- Sumec North America imports crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China and challenged Commerce Department actions related to antidumping duty rates and instructions.
- Sumec sought judicial relief contesting (1) Commerce's Timken Notice setting a retroactive effective date for its revised deposit rate, (2) Amended Cash Deposit Instructions applying the China-wide 238.95% rate instead of a 13.18% rate, and (3) Automatic Liquidation Instructions issued without correcting the effective date.
- Sumec moved for a Rule 73.3(b) accommodation to expand the administrative record; the court denied it, construing the suit as a pure question of law under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).
- After Commerce published final results and lifted the administrative stay, Sumec’s entries became subject to liquidation; Sumec then moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent liquidation.
- The government and SolarWorld opposed Sumec’s motions; Sumec also moved to strike portions of the government’s brief that cited public filings in a prior case.
- The court held a hearing and denied both Sumec’s motion to strike and its motion for a preliminary injunction, dissolving the temporary restraining order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike citation to prior-case document | Sumec: citation prejudices Sumec and includes materials outside the record | U.S.: citation is to public information and protects against unfair surprise | Denied: Sumec failed to show bad faith or prejudice; motion was extraordinary and unnecessary |
| Irreparable harm necessary for preliminary injunction | Sumec: liquidation and duties owed create irreparable financial harm and may prevent meaningful review | U.S.: financial loss is compensable; harm is speculative and unparticularized | Denied: Sumec did not show likely irreparable harm; court did not reach other factors |
| Whether reliquidation would bar meaningful judicial review | Sumec: risk of reliquidation could strip ability to challenge Commerce under §1581(i) | U.S.: reliquidation concern is speculative and unsupported | Not resolved on merits: court found claim speculative and insufficient for injunction |
| Applicability of Rule 56.2 timing for injunctions | Sumec invoked Rule 56.2 timing | U.S.: Rule 56.2 applies to §1581(c), not §1581(i) | Court noted Rule 56.2 inapplicable because case arises under §1581(i) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wind Tower Trade Coal. v. United States, 741 F.3d 89 (Fed. Cir.) (standards for preliminary injunction in trade cases)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Sup. Ct.) (preliminary injunction requires likely irreparable harm)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806 (Fed. Cir.) (definition of irreparable harm)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (Sup. Ct.) (financial loss generally not irreparable when damages are available)
- Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce must publish notice after a court decision not in harmony with its determination)