Court Opinion

ID: 9376790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 21:01:03.344623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:09.272214
License: Public Domain

Slip Op. 23-28

               UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 JILIN BRIGHT FUTURE CHEMICALS
 CO. LTD,

                    Plaintiff,

               and

 NINGXIA GUANGHUA CHERISHMET
 ACTIVATED CARBON CO., LTD. AND
 DATONG MUNICIPAL YUNGUANG
 ACTIVATED CARBON CO., LTD.,

                    Plaintiff-Intervenors,     Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge
                                               Court No. 22-00336
               v.

 UNITED STATES,

                    Defendant,

               and

 CALGON CARBON CORPORATION
 AND NORIT AMERICAS, INC.,

            Defendant-Intervenors.

                                   OPINION AND ORDER

[Granting Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the United
States from liquidating certain of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ entries of activated carbon.]

                                                                Dated: March 3, 2023

Jordan C. Kahn and Francis J. Sailer, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman &
Klestadt LLP, of New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Intervenors Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet
Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. and Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Emma E. Bond, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, of Washington DC, for Defendant United States. With her on the
Court No. 22-00336                                                                      Page 2

brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M.
McCarthy, Director, and Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was
Ashlande Gelin, Office of Trade Enforcement & Compliance, Department of Commerce.

       Barnett, Chief Judge: Before the court is plaintiff-intervenors Ningxia Guanghua

Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. and Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated

Carbon Co., Ltd.’s (together, “Plaintiff-Intervenors”) partial consent motion for

preliminary injunctions to enjoin defendant, the United States (“Defendant”), from

liquidating certain of its entries of activated carbon from the People’s Republic of China.

Partial Consent Mot. for Prelim. Injs. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 30. Specifically, Plaintiff-

Intervenors seek to enjoin liquidation of all unliquidated entries of activated carbon that

were exported by Plaintiff-Intervenors and entered into the United States during the

period of review (“POR”) between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, and were subject

to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) final determination in the

fourteenth administrative review (“AR14”) of the antidumping duty order on activated

carbon from China. See Mot. at 1–2; see also Certain Activated Carbon from the

People’s Republic of China (“Final Results”), 87 Fed. Reg. 67,671 (Dep’t Commerce

Nov. 9, 2022) (final results of antidumping duty admin review; and final determination of

no shipments; 2020–2021).

       The court has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 516A(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2018) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(2) (2018).

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion for a preliminary injunction

is granted.
Court No. 22-00336                                                                   Page 3

                                       BACKGROUND

       Commerce published the Final Results on November 9, 2022. See Final

Results, 87 Fed. Reg. at 67,671. On December 9, 2022, plaintiff Jilin Bright Future

Chemicals Co., Ltd. (“Jilin Bright”), a foreign producer and exporter of activated carbon,

filed a summons commencing this case. See Summons, ECF No. 1. On January 6,

2023, Jilin Bright filed a complaint challenging several aspects of Commerce’s

antidumping duty calculation as to Jilin Bright. See Compl. ¶¶ 11–18, ECF No. 9.

       Plaintiff-Intervenors are separate rate respondents whose merchandise is also

subject to the Final Results. See Mot. at 2–3; Final Results, 87 Fed. Reg. at 67,672.

Plaintiff-Intervenors received the same rate as Jilin Bright, which was the only

mandatory respondent whose rate was not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts

available. See Final Results, 87 Fed. Reg. at 67,672. On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff-

Intervenors filed a consent motion to intervene in this action, Consent Mot. to Intervene

as of Right, ECF No. 18; see also Am. Consent Mot. to Intervene as of Right (“Am. Mot.

to Intervene”), ECF No. 25-2, and the court granted that motion on February 9, 2023,

Docket Entry, ECF No. 26.

       On February 15, 2023, Commerce posted liquidation instructions to liquidate

Plaintiff-Intervenors’ entries of activated carbon made during the POR. See Mot. at 3.

On February 16, 2023, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed the instant motion for preliminary

injunctions. See Mot. Defendant opposed the motion. See Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to

Pl.-Ints.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (“Def.’s Resp.”), ECF No. 32. Jilin Bright consented to the
Court No. 22-00336                                                                    Page 4

motion while Defendant-Intervenors stated that they oppose the motion, Mot. at 9;

however, they did not file responsive arguments.

                                         DISCUSSION

       “In international trade cases, the [U.S. Court of International Trade (“USCIT”)]

has authority to grant preliminary injunctions barring liquidation in order to preserve a

party’s right to challenge the assessed duties.” Qingdao Taifa Grp. Co. v. United

States, 581 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “A preliminary injunction is an

extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To prevail, Plaintiff–Intervenors must demonstrate (1) a

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the likelihood of irreparable harm without

injunctive relief; (3) that the balance of equities favors Plaintiff–Intervenors; and (4) that

injunctive relief serves the public interest. Id. at 20; Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States,

710 F.2d 806, 809 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

       Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion on the basis of the four-

factor test for injunctive relief. Instead, Defendant contends that Plaintiff-Intervenors’

motion “should be denied because it seeks to expand the issues in this case, which an

intervenor may not do.” Def.’s Resp. at 3 (citing Vinson v. Washington Gas Light Co.,

321 U.S. 489, 498 (1944); Laizhou Auto Brake Equip. Co. v. United States, 31 CIT 212,

214–15, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1300–01 (2007)). Defendant further contends that the

plain language of USCIT Rule 56.2(a), providing for statutory injunction of only “entries

that are the subject of the action,” cannot apply to entries made by Plaintiff-Intervenors
Court No. 22-00336                                                                  Page 5

because “Jilin Bright’s complaint did not seek nor contemplate the equitable relief”

sought by Plaintiff-intervenors.

       Defendant’s arguments are unpersuasive. As Defendant concedes, the court

has rejected Defendant’s arguments repeatedly. Def.’s Resp. at 4 (citing to Nexteel Co.

v. United States, 43 CIT __, __, 393 F. Supp. 3d 1287, 1291 (2019); Nexteel Co. v.

United States, 41 CIT __, 227 F. Supp. 3d 1323 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017); New Mexico

Garlic Growers Coalition v. United States, 41 CIT __, 256 F. Supp. 3d 1373 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2017); Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States, 40 CIT __, 195 F. Supp.

3d 1324 (2016); Tianjin Wanhua Co. v. United States, 38 CIT __, 11 F. Supp. 3d 1283

(2014); Union Steel v. United States, 34 CIT 567, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (2010); Union

Steel v. United States, 33 CIT 614, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (2009); NSK Corp. v. United

States, 32 CIT 161, 547 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (2008).1

       As the court explained in these prior opinions, “[t]he concept of enlargement is

one that is best reserved for situations in which an intervenor adds new legal issues to

those already before the court.” Nexteel, 227 F. Supp. 3d at 1325 (quoting Tianjin

Wanhua, 11 F. Supp. 3d at 1285) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, a motion for

preliminary injunction by a plaintiff-intervenor “which does not raise additional

1 As Defendant recognizes, in the 16 years since Laizhou, there has been a steady and
consistent stream of opinions from this court finding that motions for preliminary
injunction made by plaintiff-intervenors seeking only to permit the results of the litigation
to be applied to their imports do not expand the scope of a case. In the absence of any
new arguments, Defendant should appeal the court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or reconsider its position going forward to permit the just, speedy
and inexpensive determination of such motions. See USCIT Rule 1.
Court No. 22-00336                                                                       Page 6

substantive issues does not enlarge the . . . complaint” and “simply ensures that the . . .

litigation will govern entries that are covered by the administrative review and subject to

the [determination] being challenged.” Nexteel, 227 F. Supp. 3d at 1325–26. Here,

there is no indication that Plaintiff-Intervenors seek to introduce new substantive issues

that were not raised in Jilin Bright’s complaint. Am. Mot. to Intervene at 3 (“Plaintiff-

Intervenors do not plan to address any issues beyond [those raised by Jilin Bright], and

then only as supplemental argumentation.”). 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].” Id. at 2–3.

       Defendant’s reliance on the plain language of USCIT Rule 56.2(a) to limit the

entries that are “the subject of the action” to those identified in the complaint is similarly

unavailing. See Def.’s Resp. at 6–8. Rule 56.2(a) states 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.” USCIT Rule 56.2(a)(4)(A). Rule 56.2(a) further provides that “[a]n

intervenor must file for a statutory 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.” USCIT Rule 56.2(a)(4)(B). Read together, these sentences

provide deadlines governing motions for injunctive relief for both plaintiffs and plaintiff-

intervenors. Thus, the sentence relied on by Defendant is not intended to limit the
Court No. 22-00336                                                                      Page 7

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.” New Mexico Garlic Growers, 256 F. Supp. 3d at 1377 (citations

and internal quotations omitted).

       The court further finds that Plaintiff-Intervenors have satisfied the requirements

for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff-Intervenors will suffer irreparable harm absent

injunctive relief because liquidation of their entries would bar them from obtaining the

relief sought, a reduction of and refund of any overpayment of antidumping duties. See

Mot. at 3; see also Zenith 710 F.2d at 810 (stating that the antidumping statutory

scheme “has no provision permitting reliquidation . . . or imposition of [a different

antidumping duty rate] after liquidation”). The court also finds that Jilin Bright has raised

issues which are “serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful” and, thus, demonstrated a

sufficient likelihood on the merits. Timken Co. v. United States, 6 CIT 76, 81, 569 F.

Supp. 65, 70 (1983). Because Plaintiff-Intervenors’ likelihood of success is tied to that

of Jilin Bright’s success, the court finds this requirement is satisfied. See Mot. at 5–6.

The court agrees that the balance of equities favors Plaintiff-Intervenors because they

will suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief and Defendant will suffer no harm

from the delay in liquidation. See Mot. at 4–5. Finally, the public interest is served by

2Section 2631(j) provides, with exceptions not relevant here, that “[a]ny person who
would be adversely affected or aggrieved by a decision in a civil action pending in the
Court of International Trade may, by leave of court, intervene in such action.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2631(j).
Court No. 22-00336                                                                Page 8

the grant of injunctive relief. See SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT 170, 176, 316

F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1329 (2004) (“As for the public interest, there can be no doubt that it

is best served by ensuring that [Commerce] complies with the law, and interprets and

applies our international trade statutes uniformly and fairly.”); Mot. at 6–7.

                                  CONCLUSION AND ORDER

       Accordingly, upon consideration of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ partial consent motion for

a preliminary injunction, and Defendant’s opposition thereto, it is hereby

       ORDERED that Plaintiff-Intervenors’ partial consent motion for a preliminary

injunction is GRANTED; it is further

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

agents, and employees of the International Trade Administration of the U.S. Department

of Commerce and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall be, and hereby are,

ENJOINED from making or permitting liquidation of any unliquidated entries of activated

carbon from the People’s Republic of China (Case A-570-904), which:

       (1) were the subject of the administrative determination published as Certain

          Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of

          Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; and Final Determination of No

          Shipments; 2020-2021, 87 Fed. Reg. 67,671 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 9, 2022);

       (2) were exported to the United States by Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet

          Activated Carbon Co., Ltd., or Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon

          Co., Ltd.;
Court No. 22-00336                                                                  Page 9

         (3) were entered into the United States during the period of review April 1, 2020,

            and March 31, 2021; and

         (4) remain unliquidated as of 5:00 p.m. on the day the court enters this order on

            the docket in this case; and it is further

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

accordance with the final and conclusive court decision in this matter, including all

appeals and remand proceedings.

                                                    /s/   Mark A. Barnett
                                                    Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge

Dated:     March 3, 2023
         New York, New York