United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 22-63

Before the Court in Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. Ltd., et. al. v. United States. et. al., Court No. 22-38, Slip Op. 22-63 (June 17, 2022) was plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction or writ of mandamus to enjoin Commerce and U.S. Customs and Border Protection from collecting cash deposits at the rate set forth in the contested Final Results for an indefinite duration to cease only on the completion of this proceeding, including any remand or appeal therefrom. The case was filed to challenge commerce final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts from China. The Court had previously issued a statutory injunction enjoining liquidation for the pendency of the case. For

the following reasons, the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.

A preliminary injunction shall only be issued when “the movant established that: (1) it will suffer irreparable harm absent the requested relief; (2) it is likely to succeed on the merits of its underlying claim; (3) the balance of the hardships favors the movant; and (4) the public interest would be served by the injunction.” Id. at 9-10. “However, ‘irrespective of relative or public harms, a movant must establish both a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.’” Id. at 10. “Bare financial losses neither constitute nor substantiate irreparable harm, even when they signal economic damage to an entity.” Id. at 12. The Court said that because plaintiffs submitted an affirmation detailing that “customers have agreed to pay ‘some or all of the increased duties[,]” that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. In addition, the Court said that plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits because they just cited “several cases in which high rates were applied and ultimately found invalid.” Id. at 16-17. The Court noted that plaintiffs skipped “the interceding analysis that led to the conclusion that a rate defies ‘commercial and economic reality.’” Id. at 17. Plaintiffs failed in “their analysis to include relevant evidence demonstrating likelihood of success on the merits[.]” Id. In addition, the Court found that the balance of equities and public interest weighted in favor of the Government. The Court also denied the request for a writ of mandamus “because it seeks to compel an outcome for which the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus.” Id. at 23. As such, plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion and writ of mandamus request were denied.