United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 22-63

Before the Court in Gujarat Flurochemicals Limited v. United States, et. al., Court No. 22-120, Slip Op. 22-63 (June 9, 2022) was plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to lower the rate of cash deposits and prohibit liquidation of entries during the pendency of this litigation. Plaintiff brought the action to contest the Commerce’s decision in a countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation of imports of granular PTFE resin from India. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion “as to the rate of cash deposit collection, arguing that under ‘well settled law’ plaintiff fails to establish the necessary factors to obtain the ‘rare and extreme relief it seeks.”’ Id. at 4. However, Commerce consented to the traditional statutory injunction regarding the liquidation of entries during the pendency of litigation. For the following reasons the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief.

To obtain any preliminary injunction, Plaintiff “must establish that it is likely to succeed on the merits, that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities is in its favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 7. The Court noted that the Supreme Court has stated “a showing of likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of the relief sought is a necessary prerequisite to a preliminary injunction.” Id. The Court said because the harm alleged by plaintiff, “lost business opportunities, inability to pass on costs, … the attendant threat of lost revenues on U.S sales through the next year, business uncertainty, and decreased demand … are not unlike those that reasonably could be expected to occur in a typical countervailing duty investigation.” Id. at 9. As such the Court concluded, regarding the cash deposit rate, “Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to show that the current cash deposit rate is likely to cause it serious, irreparable harm.” Id. at 10. Turning the injunction to enjoin liquidation, because plaintiff’s motion made “no attempt to specify the technical parameters that are addressed in USCIT Form 24” the Court would denied the motion. However, the Court denied the motion without prejudice to refile the USCIT Form 24 and receive the injunction.