Slip Op. 20-16

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

MID CONTINENT STEEL & WIRE, INC. ET AL.,

Plaintiff and Consolidated Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

PT ENTERPRISE INC. ET AL.,

Defendant-Intervenors and Consolidated 

Defendant-Intervenor.

Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge

Consol. Court No. 15-00213

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

[Granting Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief.]

Dated: February 7, 2020

Adam Henry Gordon and Ping Gong, The Bristol Group PLLC, of Washington, DC, for 

plaintiff and consolidated defendant-intervenor Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc.

Ned Herman Marshak and Andrew Thomas Schutz, Grunfeld Desiderio Lebowitz 

Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, of New York, NY, and Washington, DC, for consolidated

plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors PT Enterprise Inc., Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise 

Inc., Unicatch Industrial Co., Ltd., WTA International Co., Ltd., Zon Mon Co., Ltd., Hor 

Liang Industrial Corporation, President Industrial Inc., and Liang Chyuan Industrial Co., 

Ltd.

Mikki Cottet, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With her on the brief were 

Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Patricia 

M. McCarthy, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Vania Wang, Attorney, 

Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, of Washington, DC.
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 2

Kelly, Judge: Before the court is Plaintiffs’ PT Enterprise Inc. (“PT”), Pro-Team 

Coil Nail Enterprise Inc. (“Pro-Team”), Unicatch Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Unicatch”), WTA 

International Co., Ltd. (“WTA International”), Zon Mon Co., Ltd. (“Zon Mon”), Hor Liang 

Industrial Corp. (“Hor Liang”), President Industrial Inc., and Liang Chyuan Industrial Co., 

Ltd (“Liang Chyuan”) (collectively “Taiwan Plaintiffs”) motion for a preliminary injunction 

to enjoin liquidation of entries of certain steel nails subject to the antidumping duty (“ADD”)

order in Certain Steel Nails From the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman, 

Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 80 Fed. Reg. 39,994 (Dep’t Commerce 

July 13, 2015) ([ADD] orders) (“ADD Order”). See Taiwan Plaintiffs’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., Jan. 

10, 2020, ECF No. 136 (“Pls.’ Br.”). Taiwan Plaintiffs specifically seek an injunction,

pursuant to U.S. Court of International Trade Rule (“USCIT”) Rules 56.2(a) and 65(a) and 

Section 516A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930,1 as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1516a(c)(2) (2012),2 that covers unliquidated entries, subject to the ADD Order,

produced or exported by Taiwan Plaintiffs, and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption into the United States on or after May 20, 2015. See Pls.’ Br. at 1, 

Proposed Order. Defendant partially opposes Taiwan Plaintiffs’ motion and does not 

consent to the proposed “indefinite and open-ended” injunction. Def.’s Partial Opp’n [Pls.’

Br.] at 1–2, Jan. 31, 2020, ECF No. 138 (“Def.’s Br.”). Instead, Defendant requests that 

any injunction entered by the court be limited to the period May 20, 2015 to June 30, 

1 Taiwan Plaintiffs seek an injunction based upon 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2), which provides that 

“the United States Court of International Trade may enjoin the liquidation of some or all entries of 

merchandise covered by a determination of the Secretary, the administering authority, or the 

Commission, upon a request by an interested party for such relief and a proper showing that the 

requested relief should be granted under the circumstances.”

2 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant provisions of Title 19 

of the U.S. Code, 2012 edition.
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 3

2018, the end of which corresponds to the conclusion of the third period of review. Id. at 

2. Defendant-Intervenor Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (“Mid Continent”)3 opposes 

Taiwan Plaintiffs’ motion, and requests that the court either deny the motion in full or set 

June 30, 2018 as the end-date to the proposed injunction. See [Mid Continent’s] Resp. 

Opp’n [Pls.’ Br.] at 1, Jan. 31, 2020, ECF No. 137 (“Def.-Intervenor’s Br.”). For the 

reasons that follow, this court grants Taiwan Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief for

unliquidated entries of subject merchandise, subject to the ADD Order, entered or 

withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on and after May 20, 2015. 

BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2015, Commerce published its final determination in its less-than-fairvalue (“LTFV”) investigation of certain steel nails from the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, 

the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See Certain Steel 

Nails from Taiwan, 80 Fed. Reg. 28,959 (Dep’t Commerce May 20, 2015) (final 

determination of sales at [LTFV]) (“Final Results”) and accompanying Issues and 

Decisions Memo. for the [Final Results], A-583-854, (May 13, 2015), available at

https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/taiwan/2015-12247-1.pdf (last visited Feb. 6,

2020). Commerce instructed Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend 

liquidation of entries subject to the ADD investigation. See Final Results, 80 Fed. Reg. 

at 28,961. Following an affirmative injury determination, Commerce issued an ADD order, 

where it directed CBP to continue to suspend liquidation from the publication date of its 

3 Mid Continent is also a plaintiff in this proceeding. See Summons, Aug. 6, 2015, ECF No. 1; 

Compl., Sept. 4, 2015, ECF No. 9. 
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 4

final determination, May 20, 2015, and to collect cash deposits on subject merchandise. 

See ADD Order, 80 Fed. Reg. at 39,996.

Mid Continent and Taiwan Plaintiffs commenced separate actions challenging 

various aspects of the Final Results, which were later consolidated. See Summons, Aug. 

6, 2015, ECF No. 1; Compl., Sept. 4, 2015, ECF No. 9; see also Order, Nov. 19, 2015, 

ECF No. 20 (consolidating Ct. Nos. 15-00213 and 15-00220 under Ct. No. 15-00213). 

The court remanded in part Commerce’s final determination in Mid Continent Steel & 

Wire, Inc. v. United States, 41 CIT __, __, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1326, 1351 (2017) (“Mid 

Continent I”), and, following Commerce’s redetermination, this court sustained 

Commerce’s remand results. Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 41 CIT 

__, __, 273 F. Supp. 3d 1161, 1170 (2017) (“Mid Continent II”). Mid Continent and Taiwan 

Plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(“Court of Appeals”) affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part, Commerce’s 

final determination concerning PT’s margin. Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United 

States, 940 F.3d 662, 675 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Mid Continent III”). Commerce’s remand 

results are expected March 16, 2020. Scheduling Order, Dec. 11, 2019, ECF No. 135.

Concurrent with litigation surrounding Commerce’s LTFV determination, 

Commerce concluded its first and second annual reviews. On February 13, 2018, 

Commerce published the final results in the first administrative review (“AR 1”) covering 

entries for the period of review May 20, 2015 to June 30, 2016 (“POR 1”). See Certain 

Steel Nails from Taiwan, 83 Fed. Reg. 6,163 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 13, 2018) (final 

results of [ADD] admin. review and partial rescission of admin. review; 2015–2016). PT, 

Pro-Team, Unicatch, Hor Liang, and Romp Coil Nails Industries Inc. (“Romp”) obtained 
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 5

injunctions for those entries, pending judicial review of Commerce’s AR 1 final 

determination. See Order, Feb. 23, 2018, ECF No. 12, from associated docket Ct. No. 

18-00027; see also Order, Feb. 28, 2018, ECF No. 15, from associated docket Ct. No. 

18-00028. On March 27, 2019, Commerce published the final results in the second 

administrative review (“AR 2”), covering the entries for the period of review July 1, 2016 

to June 30, 2017 (“POR 2”). See Certain Steel Nails from Taiwan, 84 Fed. Reg. 11,506 

(Dep’t Commerce Mar. 27, 2019) (final results of [ADD] admin. review and partial 

rescission of admin. review; 2016–2017). Unicatch obtained an injunction on entries for 

the period of review, pending judicial review of the AR 2 final determination. See Order, 

Apr. 17, 2019, ECF No. 10, from associated docket Ct. No. 19-00052.

The final results in the third administrative review (“AR 3”), covering the period of 

review July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 (“POR 3”), are pending. See Certain Steel Nails 

from Taiwan, 84 Fed. Reg. 48,116 (Dep’t Commerce Sept. 12, 2019) (prelim. results of 

[ADD] admin. review; 2017–2018). Pursuant to Commerce’s liquidation instructions to 

CBP, liquidation for entries for Liang Chyuan, PT, Pro-Team, Unicatch, Hor Liang, and 

Romp, i.e., companies that requested review, remain suspended. See Certain Steel Nails 

from Taiwan, 84 Fed. Reg. 6,361 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 27, 2019) (partial rescission of 

[ADD] admin. review; 2017– 2018).

The fourth administrative review (“AR 4”), covering the period of review July 1, 

2018 to June 30, 2019 (“POR 4”), is also pending. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Admin. Reviews, 84 Fed. Reg. 47,242, 47,247–48 (Dep’t Commerce 

Sept. 9, 2019). Given that all Taiwan Plaintiffs, except for WTA International, requested 

review, liquidation for those companies’ entries is administratively suspended.
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 6

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court continues to have jurisdiction pursuant to Section 516a(a)(2)(B)(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i), and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) 

(2012), which grant the court authority to review actions contesting the final determination 

in an investigation of an ADD order. 

Section 1516a(c)(2) authorizes the Court to enjoin liquidation “upon a request by 

an interested party for such relief and a proper showing that the requested relief should 

be granted under the circumstances.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2). To obtain the relief of 

an injunction, a plaintiff carries the burden to establish that: (1) it is likely to suffer 

irreparable harm without the injunction; (2) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (3) the 

balance of equities favors plaintiff; and, (4) granting the injunction will not run counter to 

the public’s interest. See Ugine & Alz Belgium v. United States, 452 F.3d 1289, 1292 

(Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

No one factor is dispositive, and “the weakness of the showing regarding one factor may 

be overborne by the strength of the others.” FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424, 427 

(Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375, 

1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Whether to grant a preliminary injunction is a matter within 

the trial court’s discretion.” Ugine, 452 F.3d at 1292. The purpose of an injunction is to 

preserve the status quo during the pendency of judicial proceedings so to provide the 

parties with any relief the court ultimately grants. See 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1516a(c)(2); Ugine, 452 F.3d at 1297.
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 7

DISCUSSION

Taiwan Plaintiffs request the court to enjoin liquidation of entries entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption into the United States on and after May 20, 

2015. See Pls.’ Br. at 1, Proposed Order. Taiwan Plaintiffs explain that liquidation would 

deprive them of a remedy to recover duties paid, should Commerce ultimately determine, 

following its remand redetermination ordered by the Court of Appeals, that all margins in 

the final determination are de minimis, resulting in revocation of the ADD Order. See Pls.’ 

Br. at 4, 9–10, 12–14. Defendant partially opposes the motion, countering that there is 

no immediate threat of liquidation until the end of an administrative review (“AR”), or 

where review has not been requested, until liquidation instructions issue. See Def.’s Br. 

at 1–2. Insofar as Taiwan Plaintiffs request an “indefinite and open-ended” injunction,

Defendant opposes Taiwan Plaintiffs’ motion; however, Defendant consents to an

injunction with an end date corresponding to the end of POR 3. Id. at 2. Mid Continent 

opposes Taiwan Plaintiffs’ motion and requests the court to either deny the motion or 

partially grant the motion by limiting the period of injunctive relief to correspond to the end 

of POR 3, i.e., June 30, 2018. See Def.-Intervenor’s Br. at 1. For the reasons that follow, 

the court grants Taiwan Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin liquidation of entries made on and after 

May 20, 2015, because Taiwan Plaintiffs have demonstrated that there is a present risk 

that entries subject to AR 1 and subsequent reviews may liquidate prior to judicial 

resolution of this proceeding and that they will suffer irreparable harm should their entries 

liquidate. Balancing this concern along with the other factors, i.e., likelihood of success 
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 8

on the merits, the balance of equities, and the public interest, favors the injunctive relief

sought.4

An antidumping proceeding begins with an investigation. By statute, Commerce is 

directed, in making a final determination that imports of subject merchandise are being 

sold, or likely to be sold, at LTFV, to disregard de minimis margins. See 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1673d(a)(4); see also id. at § 1673b(b)(3) (defining a de minimis margin as “less than 2 

percent ad valorem or the equivalent specific rate”). If, however, an LTFV investigation 

yields affirmative findings, and the International Trade Commission also issues an 

affirmative injury finding, Commerce will publish an ADD order that imposes antidumping 

duties on subject merchandise. See id. at § 1673e(a).

Once the ADD order is in place, Commerce conducts administrative reviews of the 

rates set forth in the order, and parties must provide cash deposits to secure any duties 

that are ultimately assessed. See id. at §§ 1673e(a), 1675(a).5 Because the U.S. has a 

retroactive system of duties, Commerce is required to look back at a period of review 

(“POR”) during an administrative proceeding to determine the extent of those duties. See

19 C.F.R. § 351.212(a) (2014). While Commerce conducts an AR, it administratively 

suspends liquidation of entries for all entities subject to its review, so that it will ultimately 

4 Taiwan Plaintiffs move for an injunction pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.2(a), which provides that 

“[a]ny motion for a statutory injunction to enjoin the liquidation of entries that are the subject of 

the action must be filed by a party to the action within 30 days after service of the complaint, or at 

such later time, for good cause shown.” USCIT R. 56.2(a). “Good cause” exists for this injunction, 

even though more than 30 days have passed since Taiwan Plaintiffs filed their complaint on 

September 4, 2015. See generally Compl. At that time, entries were not susceptible to liquidation. 

Since then, the change in circumstances that gives rise to Taiwan Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive 

relief, namely the passage of time allowing for several PORs and the Court of Appeals’ remand 

order for Commerce to reconsider the Final Results, constitutes good cause. See generally

Midwest III, 940 F.3d, and subsequent ARs concluded. 

5 Interested parties may request administrative review “during the anniversary month of the 

publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(b)(1).
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 9

be able to assess any antidumping duties. See id. at §§ 351.212(b), 351.213(a)–(b); see 

also 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675, 1673e(a). If no review is requested, or requests for review are 

withdrawn, Commerce will issue automatic liquidation instructions for CBP to assess 

antidumping duties at the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry. 19 C.F.R. 

§ 351.212(c); see also 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Following completion of an AR, Commerce 

issues instructions to CBP lifting suspension of liquidation for that POR, unless parties 

seek judicial review and obtain an injunction. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(1)–(2) (authorizing 

liquidation of entries in accordance with Commerce’s original determination, unless 

liquidation is enjoined). Injunctions are generally issued on consent and remain in effect 

for the duration of the court proceeding including all appeals. See id. at § 1516a(e).

Otherwise, if there is no court-ordered injunction, Commerce issues instructions to CBP 

to lift suspension of liquidation, and CBP will liquidate, within six months, entries made 

during the POR at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. Id. at § 1504(d).

Here, Taiwan Plaintiffs have established a “presently existing, actual threat” of 

irreparable harm for entries subject to AR 1 and subsequent administrative reviews. See

Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806, 809 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting S.J. 

Stile Associated Ltd. v. Snyder, 646 F2d 522, 525 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (internal quotations 

omitted)). Taiwan Plaintiffs challenge before this court Commerce’s Final Results, which 

resulted in the ADD Order that serves as the basis for subsequent ARs. If, following 

completion of judicial review, Commerce ultimately determines all weighted average 

dumping margins are de minimis, that finding effectively nullifies an affirmative LTFV 
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 10

determination6 and, therefore, cannot serve as the basis for an ADD order to impose 

duties, see 19 U.S.C. § 1673 (providing that antidumping duties may only be assessed 

when there is a valid determination of dumping), or for subsequent administrative reviews. 

All unliquidated entries are subject to liquidation at that revised zero rate, irrespective of 

date of entry. See id. at § 1516a(e). Given that there is no provision, by statute, that 

permits reliquidation, see Zenith, 710 F.2d at 810, the liquidation of entries constitutes 

irreparable harm. Therefore, securing the full benefits of judicial review of the Final

Results, which may result in the revocation of the ADD Order, requires an injunction to 

forestall liquidation prior to the completion of judicial review and ensure liquidation in 

conformity with the court’s final decision.

The danger of liquidation pending judicial review of an investigation constitutes 

irreparable harm. As explained in Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 38 CIT __, 34 F. 

Supp. 3d 1355 (2014), the procedural complexities in the administration of antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders renders the threat of irreparable harm sufficiently imminent 

to warrant injunctive relief in connection with judicial review of an investigation. Id., 38 

CIT at __, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1359-63. In that case, movants sought an injunction on entries 

covered by a final determination, arguing that liquidation would moot their challenge. Id.

38 CIT __, 34 F. Supp. 3d at 1358. Focusing on irreparable harm, the court noted that 

final ADD rates are not settled until the completion of the AR, and, that if a party does not 

request review, entries are liquidated without notice at the cash deposit rate. Id. 38 CIT 

at __, 34 F. Supp. 3d at 1360. Although Commerce administratively suspends liquidation 

6 If Commerce’s final LTFV determination is negative, the investigation terminates, and 

Commerce will publish notice of the negative determination. It will also terminate suspension of 

liquidation and refund any cash deposits collected pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(1)(B).
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 11

of entries during ARs, not all entities seek AR. Id. Moreover, an administrative 

suspension of liquidation may terminate during judicial review. The court explained that 

issuing the injunction was “proper at this time, even if the threat of injury is not ‘imminent’ 

in the same sense it is following an administrative review[,]” because it would ensure that 

movants would receive the “full benefit” of their judicial challenge and possibly “obviate” 

the need for future administrative reviews. Id.

The danger of liquidation becomes sufficiently imminent when an ADD order is

published. Pursuant to section 1673e(a), Commerce, in an ADD order, directs Customs

to, inter alia, assess antidumping duties “after the date on which [Commerce] receives 

satisfactory information upon which the assessment may be based.” 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1673e(a). Commerce will, if requested, conduct an annual review under section 

1675(a)(1) to determine the amount of ADD, which will be the duty assessed on entries 

during the POR. Id. at § 1675(a)(1); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(a)–(b). Courts have 

long recognized that “[t]he necessary implication of reading section 1673e(a) together 

with section 1675, in pari materia, is that the suspension of liquidation of an entry must 

remain in effect throughout an administrative review by Commerce.” 7 See American 

Power Pull Corp. v. United States, 40 CIT __, __, 121 F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1301 (2016)

(citing Ambassador Div. of Florsheim Shoe v. United States, 748 F.2d 1560, 1565 (Fed. 

Cir. 1984)). When Commerce publishes the final results of the AR, Customs has six 

7 Additionally, section 1673d(c)(1)(B)(3) requires Commerce suspend liquidation in cases where 

the preliminary determination by the administering authority was negative and the final 

determination was affirmative. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(3). Such was the case here. See

Certain Steel Nails from Taiwan, 79 Fed. Reg. 78,053 (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 29, 2014) (negative 

prelim. determination of sales at [LTFV] and postponement of final determination). However, 

entries which are not subject to AR will be subject to automatic liquidation. 19 C.F.R. 

§ 351.212(c).
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 12

months to liquidate entries covered by the POR. 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). If, however, an 

entity does not request administrative review, its entries are subject to automatic 

liquidation. 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(c).

Defendant’s objection to Taiwan Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction stems from its view 

that, because ARs are still in progress, the threat of harm is not sufficiently imminent. 

See Def.’s Br. at 7–13. Likewise, Mid Continent views any injunction as duplicative 

because of the suspensions of liquidation stemming from the ARs.8 See Def.-Intervenor’s 

Br. at 1–2. Both Defendant and Mid Continent fail to acknowledge the threat of harm that

flows from the fact that the suspensions of liquidation for the ARs may be lifted with little 

notice while judicial review of the investigation remains pending.9 Here, most, but not all, 

Taiwan Plaintiffs have or are currently participating in ARs 1–4. If, following Commerce’s 

remand redetermination, the ADD Order is revoked, Taiwan Plaintiffs that have not 

participated in the ARs, or those that choose not to challenge the final results of an AR,

will have no recourse to reimbursement for duties paid on liquidated entries. Likewise, if 

8 Mid Continent would have Taiwan Plaintiffs take the “correct course of action” and seek 

extensions of current injunctions, as well as administrative suspensions of liquidation for entries 

under review. Def.-Intervenor’s Br. at 2–3. Mid Continent argues that injunctions only issue to 

prevent presently existing and actual threats of injury, none of which exist here. Id. at 2. 

9 Defendant contends that “[w]hen another mechanism such as an administrative review or

statutory injunction prevents liquidation, the irreparable harm from which the applicant seeks 

immediate relief is absent,” and cites to Sumecht NA, Inc. v. United States, 923 F.3d 1340 (Fed. 

Cir. 2019), as support. See Def.’s Br. at 9. Therefore, according to Defendant, an administrative 

injunction on entries from July 1, 2018 forward would not support a injunctive relief. Id. However, 

Defendant’s reliance on Sumecht is misplaced. In Sumecht, the Court of Appeals agreed with 

the CIT that plaintiff Sumec had not demonstrated irreparable harm, because Sumec had 

obtained an injunction in a countervailing duty case covering the same entries in the ADD case. 

Id. at 1346–47. The Court of Appeals did not find Sumec’s citations to other CIT cases 

persuasive, because none “require[] such overlapping injunctions.” Id. at 1346. However, the 

Court of Appeals declined to “constrain the CIT’s discretion by imposing this type of acontextual 

rule,” and narrowly held that, “[u]nder these circumstances, Sumec’s entries are currently 

protected from liquidation due to the Statutory Injunction.” Id. at 1346–47. 
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 13

judicial review of an AR concludes without an injunction in the investigation, entries will 

be subject to liquidation in short order. Securing the full benefits of judicial review of the 

Final Results should not require participation in each AR. Otherwise, Taiwan Plaintiffs 

who fail to seek review will continue to face the risk that their entries will be liquidated at 

a rate that ultimately proves to be wrongful. See Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, 20 

CIT 712, 717, 928 F. Supp. 1182, 1187 (1996). Requiring Taiwan Plaintiffs to traverse 

this route would not only risk denying Taiwan Plaintiffs the full benefits of judicial review,

it would create perverse incentives to challenge, and seek judicial review of, each of 

Commerce’s AR determinations. A litigant without a good faith basis to believe that an 

agency’s AR determination was unreasonable on the record would be hard-pressed not 

to challenge the determination in court in order to fully preserve the remedy that would 

flow from a successful challenge to the initial investigation. True, a respondent could seek 

an injunction against liquidation after it decides not to seek judicial review of an AR, but 

the court fails to see why doing so should be required. The potential harm flows from the 

results of the investigation, not from the decision to forgo judicial review of an AR.

Indeed, the purpose of an injunction is to preserve the status quo during the 

pendency of judicial proceedings so as to provide the parties with any relief the court 

ultimately grants. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2); Ugine, 452 F.3d at 1297. The harm is 

immediate in light of the purpose behind the injunction, which is to secure judicial remedy 

in the instant case; failure to grant this remedy may deprive Taiwan Plaintiffs of that 

remedy, and the harm will be irreparable. Preserving the status quo until conclusion of 

this dispute demands enjoining liquidation of any Taiwan Plaintiffs’ entries within the 
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 14

scope of the challenged order. Therefore, an injunction against liquidation should apply 

to all entries from AR 1 going forward, until conclusion of the dispute. 

Moreover, the remaining three factors that guide a court’s evaluation of whether to 

grant an injunction also support Taiwan Plaintiffs request.10 Regarding likelihood of 

success on the merits, numerous cases have explained that “[w]hen the irreparable harm

factor tilts decidedly in favor of the movant, the burden of showing likelihood of success 

is lessened.” See Husteel, 38 CIT __, 34 F. Supp. 3d at 1362 (citing Qingdao, 581 F.3d 

at 1378–79; Ugine, 452 F.3d at 1292–93). Taiwan Plaintiffs have raised a number of 

substantial questions concerning the Final Results. See id. at 1362 (citing NMB Sing. v. 

United States, 24 CIT 1239, 1245, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1140 (2000) (When a movant 

demonstrates irreparable harm, “it will ordinarily be sufficient that the movant has raised 

serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful questions that are the proper subject of 

litigation.”) (internal quotations omitted)). Taiwan Plaintiffs commenced this action to 

contest, inter alia, Commerce’s choice of methodology that supported its affirmative LTFV 

determination and led to the issuance of the ADD Order. See generally Compl. Following 

litigation before this court and appeal concerning this issue, Commerce, on remand, may 

determine that all margins are de minimis. Without opining on the correct reading and 

probative value of the Court of Appeals’ decision in Mid Continent III, which Defendant 

10 The court traditionally applies a “sliding scale” approach, where no single factor is dispositive, 

and the strength of one factor may overcome the weakness of another. See Ugine, 452 F.3d at 

1292–93 (quoting Corus Grp. PLC v. Bush, 26 CIT 937, 942, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1353–54

(2002). Given that the risk of irreparable harm is generally considered the most crucial, see, e.g.,

Corus, 26 CIT at 942, 217 F. Supp. 2d at 1354 (collecting cases), the burden to make a showing 

of the remaining three factors diminishes.
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 15

contests, see Def.’s Br. at 13–14,11 its remand order is sufficient to show that Taiwan 

Plaintiffs have at least a fair chance of success on the merits.

Further, the balance of equities favors an injunction.12 As noted, Taiwan Plaintiffs 

face an immediate threat of irreparable harm, as entries could liquidate prior to the 

completion of judicial review in this case, leaving Taiwan Plaintiffs without remedy. By 

contrast, Defendant and Mid Continent have not provided an explanation of any prejudice 

that the government or Mid Continent would suffer if the court grants the injunction as 

requested. Despite Defendant’s and Mid Continent’s contentions to the contrary, such 

an injunction would not be “open ended” or “indefinite.” The injunction against liquidation 

would tie to the judicial proceeding, such that the injunction would expire once this 

proceeding concludes. Even if one adopts the characterization of “open-ended” or 

11 Defendant contends that Taiwan Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on 

the merits, because the Court of Appeals upheld Commerce’s methodology and, in its remand 

instructions to Commerce, requested Commerce to further explain that choice. Def.’s Br. at 13–

14. Defendant implies that because Taiwan Plaintiffs have not demonstrated threat of irreparable 

harm, they must demonstrate more than a minimal likelihood of success. See Defs.’ Br. at 13–

14 (citing Fuyao Glass Indus. Grp. Co. v. United States, 27 CIT 1166, 1171 (2003)). However, 

for the reasons discussed above, Taiwan Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing of immediate 

irreparable harm. Therefore, Defendant’s argument that Taiwan Plaintiffs must demonstrate a

“high” likelihood of success on the merits is misplaced. Def.’s Br. at 13–14. 

12 Defendant limits its discussion of this factor to a scenario where the court issues an “openended” preliminary injunction, arguing that “a broader injunction covering such future entries is 

not necessary to maintain the status quo.” Def.’s Br. at 14–15. Defendant seems concerned that 

if the court were to grant the injunction Taiwan Plaintiffs seek that parties would routinely seek 

preemptive relief in the form of a request for an injunction in a case challenging an investigation. 

Id. at 15. But as the statutory and regulatory scheme make clear, in most cases suspension of 

liquidation will flow from the AR process such that litigants will not need to incur the expense of 

obtaining an injunction in connection with an investigation. However, even if parties were to make 

such preemptive motions, Congress specifically provided for injunctions to protect against 

liquidation in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c). The harm that flows from liquidation is irreparable; there 

seems to be no harm at all to the government or domestic parties stemming from an injunction on 

liquidation; and, ultimately, ensuring duties are imposed only when warranted is within the public’s 

interest. 
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 16

“indefinite” put forth by Defendant and Mid Continent, it is unclear how either party would 

suffer harm. Therefore, the balance of equities favors injunctive relief. 

Finally, the public interest is served by the proposed injunction. Preventing 

liquidation maintains the status quo until the final resolution of this case and ensures that

Commerce properly administers antidumping laws. See, e.g., Husteel, 38 CIT at __, 34 

F. Supp. 3d at 1363. Here, an injunction not only safeguards Taiwan Plaintiffs’ interests 

and may even obviate the need for future ARs, it also helps to ensure that duties will only 

be imposed when warranted, which is in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

On balance, the factors support granting an injunction. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that Taiwan Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is granted; and 

it is further

ORDERED that Defendant, United States, together with the delegates, officers,

agents and employees of the International Trade Administration of the United States 

Department of Commerce and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall be, and 

hereby are, enjoined, pending a final and conclusive court decision in this litigation, 

including all appeals and remand proceedings, from issuing instructions to liquidate or 

otherwise causing or permitting liquidation of unliquidated entries of subject merchandise 

from Taiwan that:

(1) are subject to antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from Taiwan

published as Certain Steel Nails From the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, 

the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,

80 Fed. Reg. 39,994 (Dep’t Commerce July 13, 2015) (antidumping duty 

orders);

(2) were produced and/or exported by PT Enterprise Inc., Pro-Team Coil

Nail Enterprise Inc., Unicatch Industrial Co., Ltd., WTA International Co., 
Consol. Court No. 15-00213 Page 17

Ltd., Zon Mon Co., Ltd., Hor Liang Industrial Corp., President Industrial 

Inc., and Liang Chyuan Industrial Co., Ltd.;

(3) were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption into the

United States on and after May 20, 2015;

(4) remain unliquidated the day upon which this Order is granted; and it is

further 

ORDERED that the entries covered by this injunction shall be liquidated in 

accordance with the final court decision in this action, including all appeals and remand 

proceedings, as provided for in section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. § 1516a(e).

/s/ Claire R. Kelly

Claire R. Kelly, Judge

Dated:February 7, 2020

New York, New York