Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States
2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 44
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- This case involves provisional trade remedy measures (cash deposits) under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671e(b) & 1673e(b) after ITC final injury determinations on Utility Scale Wind Towers from China and Vietnam.
- ITC found injury in an evenly divided 3-3 vote, with two commissioners finding material injury and one finding threat, while others did not find injury.
- Commerce applied the special rule (1671e(b)(2), 1673e(b)(2)) for provisional measures, citing MBL as controlling guidance.
- Wind Tower Trade Coalition seeks preliminary injunctions to stop liquidation suspension and require refunds for entries made before February 13, 2013; CS Wind intervenors oppose.
- The court previously denied TRO/PI motions, then granted a TRO to allow responses, and now denies the PI motions after full briefing.
- The court analyzes whether Commerce’s application of the special rule is a reasonable construction of the statutes under Chevron and related precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether special rule 1671e(b)(2) applies to the fragmented ITC vote | Wind Tower argues special rule should apply per MBL. | Commerce reasonably applied the special rule given the fragmented affirmative determination. | Special rule applies; Commerce's interpretation reasonable. |
| Whether Commerce’s interpretation is consistent with Chevron step two | MBL requires the general rule; the special rule misreads statute. | Special rule is a permissible construction harmonizing statute with ITC voting patterns. | Commerce interpretation reasonable under Chevron. |
| Whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits | Special rule misapplied; general rule should govern. | Special rule correctly follows statutory purposes and MBL rationale. | Court finds likelihood of success on merits not established. |
| Irreparable injury without injunction | Liquidation would cause irreparable harm due to loss of value and refunds not immediately available. | Injury acknowledged, but not irreparable if merits fail and statutory limits apply. | Irreparable injury shown, but outweighed by other factors. |
| Balance of equities and public interest | Injunction would preserve status quo and protect parties during review. | Provisional measures have statutory time limits and potential refunds with no interest; injunction could prolong relief beyond four months. | Equities and public interest do not favor injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- MBL (USA) Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 108, 787 F. Supp. 202 (1992) (controls treatment of special vs general rule under fragmented ITC votes)
- Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United States, 13 CIT 1013, 728 F. Supp. 730 (1989) (pre-MBL decision on provisional measures framework)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Zenith rule and mootness concern with liquidation)
- FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (likelihood of success standard in injunctions in trade cases)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (emphasizes focus on likelihood of success in injunction calculus)
- United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (2009) (Chevron framework and deference to agency interpretation when reasonable)
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 495 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (context for agency interpretation and statutory interpretation in antidumping)
- NSK Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 650, 217 F. Supp.2d 1291 (2002) (statutory interpretation in antidumping context)
- Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (agency interpretation under Chevron in trade remedy)
- Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (agency interpretations and statutory ambiguity)
- Brand X Internet Servs. v. United States, 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (agency policy change and Chevron deference)