Exporter Failed to Secure Govt. Consent Before Filing for Injunction, DOJ Tells CIT
Exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. failed to obtain the consent of the U.S. before it filed its motion for a statutory injunction against the liquidation of its light-truck spare tire models in an antidumping duty challenge, the Department of Justice argued in an Oct. 13 brief at the Court of International Trade. Rather, counsel for Cheng Shin completely misrepresented DOJ's position, declaring that it had the government's consent for the injunction, when it didn't, DOJ said. Opposing the scope of the injunction, which the court has already granted, DOJ also took issue with the fact that Cheng Shin applied for an "open-ended injunction" (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The brief comes in Cheng Shin's challenge to the Commerce Department's decision to not exclude the exporter's light-truck spare tire models from the less-than-fair-value investigation into passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan (see 2109090056). Cheng Shin filed for an injunction, which was subsequently granted, against the liquidation of its subject entries indefinitely. DOJ is now contesting this time frame, only consenting to an injunction that ends on June 30, 2022, as this is the ending date of the first administrative review period of the relevant antidumping duty order.
"Cheng Shin impermissibly filed the Form 24 without securing the Government’s consent and without providing the Government a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond and object to Cheng Shin’s proposed injunction," DOJ said. Counsel for Cheng Shin sent an email on Oct. 8 at 3:03 p.m. alerting DOJ to its intent to file the injunction motion that day. The motion was then filed at 5:45 p.m. that day. "This was the first and only time that Cheng Shin indicated to the Government that it had intended to seek an injunction. ... But the undersigned counsel for the Government had not even seen Cheng Shin’s counsel’s email, let alone responded with our position on consent, before Cheng Shin’s counsel precipitously filed the form misrepresenting the Government’s position."