Petitioner Opposes Exporter's Bid for Statutory Injunction in Case on Expedited CVD Review
The Court of International Trade should deny exporter Mobilier Rustique's bid for either a statutory or equitable injunction against the liquidation of its entries in a case on an expedited countervailing duty review, petitioner Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations argued in a Feb. 6 brief (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
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.
The petitioner argued that a statutory injunction isn't available, since an expedited CVD review is purely a creation of the Commerce Department's regulations and doesn't qualify for such an injunction under the antidumping duty and countervailing duty laws. The committee added that Rustique doesn't qualify for an equitable injunction, either, since the company failed to show it will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.
At issue is the expedited CVD review of Canadian softwood lumber. The underlying AD/CVD orders on the goods were issued in 2018, after which Rustique requested reviews of both the AD and the CVD orders. However, the exporter withdrew its request for a CVD review and instead took part in the expedited review of the CVD order in which it received a 1.99% CVD rate.
Litigation on the expedited review began in July 2019 and, after lengthy proceedings, continues to this day but is now narrowed to the CVD rate for exporter Les Produits Forestiers D&G (see 2512190075). While the litigation commenced, Commerce issued the results of the first review of the AD order, which was challenged before a binational panel established under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. As part of this review, Commerce ordered the suspension of liquidation for affected entries, including Rustique's entries.
As a result, Rustique's entries between April 28 and June 29, 2017, were subject to liquidation, though its entries between June 30, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018, were "effectively mooted by the suspension of liquidation resulting from the USMCA panel review" of the final results of the AD administrative review. In September 2025, however, the USMCA panel granted a joint motion for voluntary dismissal, which lifted the suspension of liquidation for entries covered by the review period of the expedited CVD review.
Rustique then filed for a statutory injunction against the liquidation of the affected entries in the present case, which was brought under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, rather than Section 1581(c), which is the jurisdictional grant for AD/CVD challenges. Previously, the trade court affirmed that it had jurisdiction in the case under Section 1581(i).
The committee challenged Rustique's motion, arguing that it didn't have a statutory basis for receiving an injunction. Statutory injunctions in AD/CVD cases are reserved for cases involving decisions made by the government under 19 U.S.C. Section 1516a(a)(2), and expedited CVD reviews are plainly not among those decisions, the petitioner said.
The committee added that Rustique likewise isn't qualified for an equitable injunction, since it won't suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. The petitioner said as an initial matter that any harm suffered by the company is "self-inflicted," since the exporter could have requested an ordinary review of the CVD order, but it didn't.
The petitioner added that if Rustique is successful on appeal in the present case, leading it to receive a de minimis CVD rate, "the company's relief would be the exclusion from the CVD order." Liquidation of a "small portion (i.e., approximately 1.5 years) of Rustique’s entries would not moot Rustique’s appeal or deprive the reviewing court of the ability to provide relief," the brief said. In any case, Rustique could achieve monetary relief, since the case was filed under Section 1581(i) and the trade court, in a case seeking IEEPA tariff refunds, affirmed its ability to order reliquidation of finally liquidated entries in Section 1581(i) cases, the committee noted.
Rustique also fails to show its likelihood of success, the petitioner argued. The exporter claimed that its arguments challenging Commerce's decision to countervail certain logging tax rebates would, "if embraced by the Federal Circuit, compel exclusion of Rustique's products" from the CVD proceeding.
"However, Rustique does not explain what these arguments are -- there is no discussion of any factual or legal deficiencies in the Court’s analysis or any subsequent changes to relevant laws that would indicate that the Federal Circuit is likely to overturn this Court’s decision," the petitioner argued.