Tianjin Wanhua Co. v. United States
11 F. Supp. 3d 1283
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2014Background
- DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd. and related entities (DuPont) seek a preliminary injunction to halt liquidations of PET entries pending appeal.
- Final Results published July 2, 2014 administer an antidumping duty determination for PET from PRC (A-570-924).
- DuPont entries were among those liquidated or to be liquidated under the Final Results; Wanhua and Green Packing challenged the Final Results.
- This matter was consolidated with two actions (Court Nos. 14-00183 and 14-00185) and a TRO was issued on September 4, 2014.
- Court held that DuPont, as an intervenor, may seek relief without enlarging the issues beyond those raised by Wanhua and Green Packing.
- Court granted the injunction enjoining liquidation of specific DuPont entries until final judgment, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to grant injunction without enlarging the action | DuPont does not raise new issues; seeks relief within existing complaints. | Enlargement occurs if intervenor broadens issues beyond complaints (Laizhou Auto Brake). | No enlargement; injunction permitted as relief within existing issues. |
| Likelihood of success on the merits | DuPont’s success is tied to the same merits as Wanhua/Green Packing. | Not contested; court must assess merits independently of intervenor. | DuPont shown likelihood of success tied to plaintiffs’ claims. |
| Irreparable harm without injunction | Without injunction, liquidation would bar relief and affect dumping-margin review. | Liquidation is permissible absent irreparable harm. | Irreparable harm established; injunction necessary to preserve rights. |
| Public interest and balance of equities | Public interest favors accurate dumping duties and orderly judicial review. | Public interest supports liquidation pending final judgment. | Public interest and equities favor injunction to preserve final-determination effects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court 2008) (four-factor injunction test governing preliminary relief)
- Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (international trade injunctions preserve right to challenge duties)
- Qingdao Taifa Group Co. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (injunctions preserve domestic party rights absent statutory framework)
- Union Steel v. United States, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (CIT 2009) (enlargement not warranted where intervenor adds no new issues)
- Union Steel I, 33 CIT 614 (CIT 2009) (enlargement concerns depend on substantive issue expansion)
- Corus Staal BV v. United States, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (CIT 2007) (early consideration of hardship and administrative review context)
- Vinson v. Washington Gas Light Co., 321 U.S. 489 (Supreme Court 1944) (limits on expansion of litigation through intervention)
- Laizhou Auto Brake Equip. Co. v. United States, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (CIT 2007) (intervenor's ability to expand issues scrutinized)