Federal Circuit—The CIT Need Not Issue Multiple Injunctions Barring Liquidation of the Same Imports

Jul 29, 2019

Reading Time : 4 min

What happens if imports face multiple, distinct duties? After all, imports may be subject to a combination of different duties (i.e., customs duties, antidumping and countervailing duties, national security tariffs, etc.), depending on the imports’ tariff schedule classification and country of origin. If a party wants to challenge the application of these distinct duties to the imports, must the CIT enter separate injunctions addressing each of the duties in dispute? In its recent decision in Sumecht NA, Inc. v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit answered that question with a resounding “no.”

Legal Framework

The CIT does not simply enter an injunction on demand. A party seeking injunctive relief from the CIT must address whether (1) it will likely succeed on the merits of its claim; (2) it will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) the balance of the hardships tips in its favor; and (4) an injunction serves the public interest. Silfab Solar, Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The party need not prove each of these elements, but its satisfaction of the first and second prongs generally leads to an injunction.

A party may satisfy the irreparable harm element by showing that it will suffer financial hardship, such as lost sales, decreased revenue, a reduction in its workforce and/or a loss of customer goodwill. But in the specific context of international trade litigation, a party may also establish irreparable harm by pointing to the threat that Customs may liquidate its imports, because liquidation moots the dispute once it occurs. Under Customs’s regulations, “[l]iquidation means the final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption.” 19 C.F.R. § 159.1.

The Decision

Sumecht adds a new wrinkle to already complex jurisprudence on irreparable harm in international trade disputes. It addresses the unusual situation in which an injunction already bars Customs from liquidating the imports at issue, albeit for a reason different from what led the CIT to enter the initial injunction. Sumecht holds that the CIT may properly find a lack of irreparable harm in the limited circumstances where an injunction already prevents Customs from liquidating the imports, even if the CIT entered the injunction for a different purpose.

The Sumecht decision stems from messy facts. The CIT had enjoined Customs from liquidating certain imports in a separate lawsuit that challenged the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) final determination in an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. In Sumecht, Sumecht NA, Inc. (“Sumecht”) sought an injunction barring Customs from liquidating the same imports, though for a different reason: Sumecht contested Commerce’s application of antidumping duties to those imports pursuant to the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China.

In seeking an injunction from the CIT, Sumecht advanced two irreparable harm arguments. First, Sumecht alleged that it would suffer financial loss if forced to pay the contested duties. Second, Sumecht argued that it would suffer irreparable harm because it is unclear whether Customs possesses the authority to reliquidate its imports (i.e., recalculate duties owed on those imports). The CIT denied Sumecht’s request to enter a separate injunction barring Customs from liquidating the imports.

The Federal Circuit upheld the CIT’s decision not to issue a second, overlapping injunction covering the same imports. Writing on behalf of the majority, Judge Wallach explained that the initial injunction already prevented Customs from liquidating the imports. He also observed that precedent did not require a second injunction and that imposing such a requirement would cabin the CIT’s discretion to issue injunctions. Finally, Judge Wallach explained that nothing would prevent Sumecht from seeking injunctive relief if the first injunction dissolves.

In reaching this conclusion, the Federal Circuit also addressed in dicta whether the potential reliquidation of Sumecht’s imports necessarily defeats Sumecht’s irreparable harm claim. Judge Wallach did not squarely answer the question. Instead, he acknowledged that the Federal Circuit’s decisions on whether (and, if so, when) Customs may reliquidate imports that are not “model[s] of clarity.” Nevertheless, he explained that those decisions do not “creat[e] a presumption that, in the preliminary injunction context,” Customs may not do so because the CIT always retains the authority to order Customs to reliquidate the imports. In any event, Judge Wallach found those decisions inapposite because the government conceded that Customs would reliquidate the imports if it lost the litigation on the merits.

Bottom Line

The principal holding in Sumecht contains a straightforward lesson: the CIT enjoys broad discretion when addressing requests for injunctive relief, and nothing compels the CIT to enter multiple injunctions on the same imports. As a consequence, importers in litigation must remain on high alert and obtain a new injunction when others dissolve.

Sumecht also leaves an important question unanswered: does Customs’s authority to reliquidate imports defeat a party’s claim of irreparable harm? Instead of squarely answering that question, the Federal Circuit simply confirmed that the CIT possesses the remedial authority to order reliquidation and judicial estoppel would bar the government from taking a different position. No doubt, this issue will arise anew.

Regardless of how federal courts resolve this unanswered question on the interplay between reliquidation and irreparable harm, parties in trade litigation may still prove irreparable harm the traditional way: showing that they will suffer financial hardship in the absence of an injunction.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Akin Trade Law

February 9, 2023

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2023-01-26

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2023-01-17

On December 21, 2022, the appeal arbitrators in the Colombia – Frozen Fries (DS591) World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute circulated their award (the “Award”). This was the second appeal conducted under Article 25 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the first appeal under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), a framework created by a group of WTO members to overcome the challenges posed by the non-operational Appellate Body.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2022-02-10

The United Kingdom just issued a new statutory instrument, effective immediately, which extends the authority to designate persons and entities under the U.K. sanctions against Russia.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2020-06-10

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin Gump’s webinar, “Protecting the Crown Jewels - New U.K. National Security Rules for Foreign Investment in a Post-COVID-19, Post-Brexit World.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2020-05-07

The clock is ticking down to the entry into force of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2020.  Leading up to that date, businesses have a unique advocacy opportunity to influence the implementing regulations and associated processes, such as legislative changes to Mexico’s domestic laws. Additionally, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), along with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts, have begun issuing guidance for the trade community seeking to obtain the benefits of the agreement. At this time, these guidance documents include a petition process for automakers to request alternative staging for the automotive rules of origin as well as general interim implementation instructions for USMCA entries. Still to come are regulations regarding the automotive labor value content requirements and Uniform Regulations regarding the customs provisions. Akin Gump and our partners at Dorantes Advisors in Mexico City have jointly developed brief summaries of these guidance documents and a timeline of key actions still to take place prior to entry into force. The materials are available here in both English and Spanish.

...

Read More

Akin Trade Law

2020-03-02

Last week, in a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) concluded that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 does not offend the non-delegation doctrine. To most observers, the ruling does not come as a surprise, but the story on Section 232 and the non-delegation doctrine is not yet over.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.