CIT Denies Injunction Pending Appeal to Furniture Maker Seeking CDSOA Funds

The Court of International Trade denied domestic furniture producer Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.'s motion to delay Byrd Amendment fund distributions from the antidumping (AD) order on wooden bedroom furniture from China for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Ashley had sought an injunction on the distributions while it takes up to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit its challenge of the denial by the International Trade Commission to grant it “affected domestic producer” or ADP, under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Act of 2000 (“Byrd Amendment,” or “CDSOA“). (Ashley had not supported the AD petition, as required by the Byrd Amendment to qualify for distributions).

The CIT reasoned that “injunctions pending appeal demand a significantly higher justification” than do stays pending trial court rulings, and found that Ashley had not “made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits,” one of four preconditions for an injunction, as prescribed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nken v. Holder, (129 S. Ct. 1749, 1761: 2009).

The CIT conceded that one of the preconditions for an injunction was satisfied, allowing that the firm could be presumed to face “irreparable harm.” However, the court found that the other preconditions were not met, since Ashley failed to show that the other parties interested in the proceeding would not be substantially injured by a delay, nor that the public interest would be served by the requested injunction. Accordingly, the CIT denied Ashley an injunction against CDSOA distributions.

(See ITT’s Online Archives 12020146 for BP summary of earlier CIT ruling denying Ashley’s bid for share in CDSOA funds)

(CIT Slip Op. 12-29, dated 03/06/12, Judges Carman, Stanceu, and Gordon)