CIT Rules Out Bid to Delay CDSOA Funds Distribution in China Wooden Furniture
Furniture Brands International, Inc. a domestic manufacturer that had filed questionnaire responses for the International Trade Commission in 2005 opposing the issuance of an AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China, lost at the Court of International Trade when it later sought a share of AD duties resulting from the order, pursuant to the Byrd Amendment (aka the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, CDSOA). Furniture Brands then sought an injunction from the CIT, pending an appeal, to delay the distribution of AD duties to other domestic companies that had supported the petition, but the CIT has now denied the request to hold up the funds distribution.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
While the CIT agreed that one prerequisite for an injunction had been met, since there was a likelihood of irreparable harm to Furniture Brands in the absence of an injunction, the court found the company failed to show 1) that the company had a likelihood of success on appeal; 2) that the other interested parties (the “affected domestic producers”) would not be harmed by an injunction; or 3) that the public interest would be served by a delay.
Noting that a party seeking such a stay following a court decision (as opposed to a preliminary injunction prior to litigation) must make “a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits,” and demonstrate that “there is a likelihood of reversal by an appeals court,” the CIT found that Furniture Brands had not done so.
The CIT also held that Furniture Brands had failed to show there would be no harm to the other interested parties awaiting a share of CDSOA distributions, or that the public interest would be served by an injunction. Accordingly, the court denied Furniture Brands' motion.
(See ITT’s Online Archives 11102604 for summary of CIT decision against Furniture Brands' challenge to ITC and CBP decisions against the firm)
(Slip Op. 12-20, dated 02/1712; Judges Carman, Stanceu and Gordon)