923 F.3d 1340
Fed. Cir.2019Background
- Sumec NA, Inc. (Sumec), a U.S. importer, challenged Commerce’s liquidation instructions that directed Customs to liquidate certain entries of Chinese crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells at the China‑wide antidumping rate for a 39‑day period (Oct. 15–Nov. 23, 2015).
- Commerce initially assigned Sumec’s Chinese exporter (Hardware) a separate antidumping rate (later amended), but on remand Commerce rescinded Hardware’s separate‑rate status and assigned the China‑wide rate; Commerce issued a Timken notice with an effective date of October 15, 2015.
- Commerce issued amended cash‑deposit and liquidation instructions applying the China‑wide rate to Hardware’s entries after October 15, 2015; Sumec alleged entries in the 39‑day window should have been subject to the lower separate rate.
- Sumec moved for a preliminary injunction in the Court of International Trade (CIT) to enjoin liquidation; the CIT denied the motion for failure to show irreparable harm and noted that a statutory injunction in a related countervailing‑duty case already enjoined liquidation of the same entries.
- Sumec appealed the CIT’s interlocutory denial of a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the CIT did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sumec showed irreparable harm to justify a preliminary injunction against liquidation | Sumec: liquidation at the China‑wide rate would cause irreparable financial harm for entries in the Oct. 15–Nov. 23 period; effective Timken date should be Nov. 23, 2015 | Government: Sumec failed to show concrete, individualized harm; the same entries are already protected by a statutory injunction in a related CVD case; reliquidation and refunds would be available if Sumec prevails | Held: No irreparable harm shown; denial affirmed because entries are covered by an existing statutory injunction and reliquidation/remedies are available if Sumec wins on the merits |
| Whether the Timken/publication effective date required liquidation change to take effect only on publication date (Nov. 23) rather than the earlier date Commerce used (Oct. 15) | Sumec: Timken notice publication date controls; earlier effective date improperly subjected entries to China‑wide rate | Government: Commerce set effective date at Oct. 15; administrative discretion in timing and instructions | Held: Court did not reach dispositive ruling on timing as Sumec failed irreparable‑harm element; appeals court affirmed denial of injunctive relief without overturning Commerce’s effective‑date choice |
| Whether the availability of reliquidation (Shinyei relief) defeats claim of irreparable harm | Sumec: Reliquidation may be uncertain (citing Ugine and American Signature), so threat of liquidation can be irreparable | Government: Represented CIT has authority to order reliquidation and will not contest availability; statutory injunction already prevents liquidation now | Held: Reliquidation availability (and government’s representation) undermined Sumec’s irreparable‑harm claim; court declined to treat Ugine/American Signature as creating a presumption that Shinyei relief is unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Commerce must publish notice when court decision is not in harmony with Commerce determination)
- Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States, 355 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (CIT has broad equitable power to order reliquidation)
- Ugine & ALZ Belgium, N.V. v. United States, 452 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (questioned availability of Shinyei relief in certain §1581(i) challenges)
- American Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (reversed denial of preliminary injunction where Shinyei relief availability was uncertain)
- Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 741 F.3d 89 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (standard of review for CIT preliminary injunction determinations)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (liquidation can constitute irreparable injury in antidumping challenges)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (elements required for a preliminary injunction)