CIT Grants PI in Case Challenging Underlying CVD Investigation Despite Late Injunction Filing
The Court of International Trade granted a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of Chinese exporter Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co.'s wood cabinet and vanity entries, in an Oct. 18 order. Although Meisen filed for the PI after the 30-day period to move for an injunction, the court accepted its PI bid since the exporter showed good cause as to why the delay was necessary (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #20-00110).
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.
Meisen launched its case to challenge the underlying countervailing duty investigation into wood cabinets and vanities from China. The exporter was originally not expecting a threat of its entries liquidating since it thought the entries would be subject to the first administrative review of the CVD investigation. In its motion for a PI, Meisen said it no longer believed this to be the case, creating the good cause for filing for the PI beyond the typical 30-day window to do so (see 2109010048).
The court bought this argument, ultimately granting the injunction. "Here, it is clear that there is good cause to excuse Plaintiff’s delay in seeking an injunction because, until Plaintiff and others withdrew their requests for review, it appeared likely that liquidation of the subject entries would remain suspended by operation of law until the publication of the final results of the first administrative review," the order said. A suspension of liquidation was in place when Meisen filed its complaint.
The order also touched on the four-factor test that governs preliminary injunctions. Of them, the court found that Meisen had a likelihood of succeeding in litigation since the exporter raises questions over the Commerce Department's application of adverse facts available over Meisen's U.S. customers' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program -- a contention that has been repeatedly struck down by CIT.