US Opposes Open-Ended Injunction Motion for Ashley Furniture's Mattress Entries

The U.S. partially opposed Ashley Furniture Industries' motion for an open-ended statutory injunction against the liquidation of its mattress imports, saying that the injunction should only run to the end of the first antidumping administrative review period. Making its case in the Court of International Trade, the U.S. said that Ashley failed to show that it will suffer immediate and irreparable harm for its mattress entries made after April 30, 2022 -- the date that "corresponds to the end of the period of review for the first administrative review" (Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00283).

Ashley's lawsuit attacks certain elements of the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Vietnam. In the case, Ashley moved for a statutory injunction with no end date, seeking to cover all future entries that could be subject to the review. Following consultations between counsel for Ashley and the U.S., the Department of Justice said that it consents to an injunction for the unliquidated entries through the end of the first administrative review period.

Arguing that it would indeed experience irreparable or immediate harm, Ashley did say that it will be deprived of meaningful review and that it would suffer economic harm from being responsible for the payment of the antidumping duties. "First, Ashley Furniture is not in danger of losing its statutory right to seek meaningful judicial review," the DOJ countered. "Although no entries are currently subject to liquidation, Ashley Furniture has sought and is entitled to meaningful judicial review."

"Second, the possibility that Ashley Furniture’s entries could become subject to AD duties at some distant point in the future does not constitute immediate injury, and there is adequate future relief available." Rather, it would be more appropriate for Ashley to seek the injunction when the liquidation date is nearer, DOJ said. The injunction motion also fails since Ashley cites no authority for the idea that it can be relieved of showing actual, irreparable harm since it "may be inattentive and fail to request amendment of the injunction," the reply brief said.