UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 23-28

Before the Court in Jilin Bright Future Chems. Co. v. United States, Court No. 22-00336, Slip Op. 23-28 (March 3, 2023) plaintiff-intervenors Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. and Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.’s partial consent motion for preliminary injunctions to enjoin defendant, the United States, from liquidating certain of its entries of activated carbon from the People’s Republic of China. Plaintiff-Intervenors sought to enjoin liquidation of all unliquidated entries of activated carbon that were exported by Plaintiff-Intervenors and entered into the United States during the period of review between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, same which were subject to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final determination in the fourteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Defendant contended that Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion should be denied because it seeks to expand the issues in this case, which an intervenor may not do.” Defendant further contended that the plain language of USCIT Rule 56.2(a), providing for statutory injunction of only “entries that are the subject of the action,” cannot apply to entries made by Plaintiff-Intervenors.

Based on the same line of thinking as many prior opinions, the court disagreed with Defendant and held that there is no indication that Plaintiff-Intervenors seek to introduce new substantive issues that were not raised in Jilin Bright’s complaint. Plaintiff-Intervenors explained that their position is entirely derivative of Jilin Bright’s, because Plaintiff-Intervenors’ antidumping duty separate rate is based entirely on Jilin Bright’s calculated rate, thus, Plaintiff-Intervenors only seek to “obtain any [antidumping duty] rate benefit obtained by [Jilin Bright].” The court further found that Plaintiff-Intervenors satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction because they will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief because liquidation of their entries would bar them from obtaining the relief sought, a reduction of and refund of any overpayment of antidumping duties. The court also found that Plaintiff-Intervenors also showed a sufficient likelihood on the merits because Jilin Bright has raised issues which are “serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful,” and their likelihood of success is tied to that of Jilin Bright’s success. Finally, the court found that the public interest is served by the grant of injunctive relief to ensure Commerce’s compliance with the law.