Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1358
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Wind Tower Trade Coalition appeals CIT denial of its motions for preliminary injunctions related to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wind towers from China and Vietnam.
- Commerce initiated investigations and issued provisional measures; ITC issued preliminary affirmative injury determinations; Commerce issued final determinations and ITC issued a final affirmative determination in a split vote.
- Orders were issued with a prospective or retrospective effect under the Special Rule and General Rule based on ITC final findings; Special Rule made duties prospectively effective.
- CIT denied likelihood of success on the merits and dissolved TROs; Coalition sought relief via immediate appeal and emergency stay.
- Court analyzes whether Commerce’s interpretation of the Special Rule under Chevron is reasonable given a fragmented ITC vote, and weighs irreparable injury, equities, and public interest.
- Court concludes the CIT did not abuse discretion; affirmance of denial of preliminary injunctions and dissolution of TROs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is properly before the Federal Circuit | Coalition asserts appellate jurisdiction under 28 USC §1292(c)/(d). | Siemens contends limited jurisdiction or lack of standing; CIT orders are interlocutory. | Court has jurisdiction over interlocutory ITC injunction orders under 28 USC §1292(c)(1) and related provisions. |
| Whether the ITC Special Rule was properly applied to a fragmented ITC vote | Statute silent; Special Rule should not apply when not all votes endorse threat with 'but for' finding. | Chevron step-two allows reasonable construction applying Special Rule to overall ITC vote. | Commerce’s application of the Special Rule is reasonable under Chevron and consistent with MBL; the vote pattern supports the Special Rule. |
| Whether Coalition established likelihood of success on the merits | Special Rule misapplied; ITC voting not properly considered; potential misinterpretation of statutes. | Statutory provisions, purposes, and statute as a whole support Commerce’s interpretation. | Coalition failed to show likelihood of success on the merits; CIT did not err. |
| Whether irreparable injury, balance of equities, and public interest support preliminary relief | Irreparable injury shown; balance and public interest favor injunctions to prevent liquidation harms. | In light of weak likelihood of success, equities and public interest do not favor injunctions. | CIT did not abuse discretion; injunctions denied and TROs dissolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard for preliminary injunctions)
- MBL (USA) Corp. v. United States, 787 F. Supp. 202 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1992) (an ITC voting pattern can determine rule application under Chevron framework)
- Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United States, 728 F. Supp. 730 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1989) (related to ITC voting pattern and provisional measures; dicta in later cases)
- Qingdao Taifa Grp. Co. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasizes importance of likelihood of success in preliminary injunctions)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court 2008) (establishes four-factor test for injunctions and public-interest considerations)
- NSK Ltd. v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002) (cited for statutory interpretation framework in ITC matters)