CIT Grants Injunction Against Liquidation of Entries Over Government Objections
The Court of International Trade on March 3 granted two plaintiff-intervenors' motion for a preliminary injunction stopping liquidation for their entries, rejecting government arguments that the injunction would have impermissibly expanded the issues in the case. Citing past CIT judgments, Judge Mark Barnett held that the enlargement concept is only reserved for cases where an intervenor adds new legal claims to those already before the court.
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 U.S. had cited Supreme Court precedent that interveners can't expand the issues in a case, as well as CIT Rule 56.2(a), which says that injunctions can only cover entries subject to the action. The original complaint from Jilin Bright challenging the review on activated carbon from China did not cover the entries from separate rate respondents Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co. and Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon, who subsequently intervened, so an injunction on those entries would broaden the case, the government had said.
Barnett rejected these claims, finding that the Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet and Datong Municipal Yunguang did not raise any new legal challenges in their motion because it only ensures that the litigation will cover entries subject to the determination being challenged. "Here, there is no indication that Plaintiff-Intervenors seek to introduce new substantive issues that were not raised in Jilin Bright’s complaint," the judge said. "... Furthermore, as Plaintiff-Intervenors explain, 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 judge added that reliance on Rule 56.2(a) "is similarly unavailing" since this rule, also says that an intervenor must file for an injunction "no earlier than the date of filing its Rule 24 motion to intervene and no later than 30 days after the date of service of the order granting intervention." As a result, "the sentence relied on by Defendant is not intended to limit the scope of injunctive relief a court may grant to plaintiff-intervenors. In effect, reading Rule 56.2(a)(4)(A) to deny injunctive relief to intervenors would 'provide intervenors with a statutory right to participate in the litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)2 without any chance for relief.'"
"We’re pleased that Judge Barnett has sided with the overwhelming CIT precedent and granted our injunction," said Jordan Kahn, counsel for the separate rate respondents.
(Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 23-28, CIT # 22-00336, dated 03/03/23, Judge Mark Barnett; Attorneys: Jordan Kahn of Grunfeld Desiderio for plaintiff Jilin Bright Future and plaintiff-intervenors; Emma Bond for defendant U.S. government)