United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 22-11

            Before the Court in Best Mattresses Int’l Co., et. al., v. United States, et. al., Consol. Court No. 21-00281, Slip Op. 22-11 (February 14, 2022) was “an application for statutory injunction on liquidation, contested by the parties on the basis of its proposed length.” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs “requested an extended injunction on the liquidation of any of their merchandise entered on or after November 3, 2020 (excluding a May 2, 2021 through May 13, 2021 “gap period”) for the pendency of the litigation.” Id. The Government opposed the extended injunction and instead requested that the injunction on liquidation not extend past April 30, 2022. Id. Plaintiffs argued that they “will likely suffer irreparable harm in absence of injunction because Commerce ‘may order liquidation of entries . . . until a contrary court decision is reached.’” Id. at 9. The Government responded that “no injunction is necessary to counter any irreparable or immediate harm” because liquidation is necessarily suspended until the end of the first administrative review period on April 30, 2022. Id. at 10. For the following reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin liquidation of entries. Id. at 2.

The court has jurisdiction over the underlying action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), and over Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2), which provides that “the United States Court of International Trade may enjoin the liquidation of some or all entries of merchandise . . . upon a request by an interested party for such relief and a proper showing that the requested relief should be granted under the circumstances.” Id. at 7. “The court considers four factors when deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for injunction of liquidation under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2), namely: 1) that the movant is likely to succeed on the merits at trial; 2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if preliminary relief is not granted; 3) that the balance of the hardships tips in the movant’s favor; and 4) that a preliminary injunction will not be contrary to the public interest. Ugine & Alz Belg. v. United States, 452 F.3d 1289, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (listing factors thereafter applied to assess the merits of plaintiff’s motion for injunction under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2), characterized by the court as a preliminary injunction) (quoting U.S. Ass’n of Imps. of Textiles & Apparel v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 413 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).” Id. at 8-9. The crucial factor is irreparable injury: indeed, the “greater the potential harm to the plaintiff, the lesser the burden on [p]laintiffs to make the required showing of likelihood of success on the merits.” Ugine, 452 F.3d at 1292 (quoting SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT 170, 176, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1329 (2004)). Id. at 9. In this case, having applied the traditional test for issuance of an injunction under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2), the court concluded that: (1) Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (2) Plaintiffs have demonstrated “a likelihood of success on the merits” because they have raised serious and substantial questions regarding Commerce’s determination which the Government did not meaningfully contest; (3) the balance of equities favors granting the injunction because Plaintiffs are at risk of losing access to judicial review, outweighing any potential burden of delay on the Government; and finally, (4) the public interest is best served by enjoining liquidation to ensure that accurate antidumping duties are assessed. Id. at 15-16. As such, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction on the liquidation of any of their merchandise entered on or after November 3, 2020 (excluding the agreed-upon gap period) for the pendency of the litigation. Id. at 16.