CIT Orders Oral Argument Over Alleged Misrepresentation of DOJ Position in Injunction Filing

The Court of International Trade ordered an in-person oral argument to take place on Nov. 4 to settle a matter in which the Department of Justice alleged that the plaintiff failed to obtain its consent before filing for a statutory injunction against the liquidation of its entries. In a brief on the injunction motion, DOJ said that counsel for Cheng Shin Rubber -- led by Jeffrey Winton of Winton & Chapman -- completely misrepresented its position, declaring that it had the government's consent for the injunction, when it didn't (see 2110250052).

The move comes in a case over Cheng Shin Rubber's challenge to the Commerce Department's decision to not exclude the exporter's light-truck spare tire models from the less-than-fair-value investigation into passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. The injunction had already been granted for an indefinite period when DOJ filed its motion to alter the injunction. In its brief, DOJ is also contesting this time frame of the injunction, pushing instead for an injunction that ends on June 30, 2022 -- the ending date of the first administrative review period of the relevant antidumping duty order.

In his order setting up the in-person oral argument, Judge Stephen Vaden also instructed counsel to "study and review the Model Rules of Professional Conduct bearing on their duty of candor toward the tribunal." Dubbing the matter a "serious allegation," Vaden ordered that the matter be conducted in person. Further, "The Court will not entertain motions to adjourn, delay, or otherwise move the hearing date set by this Order," the judge said.

Vaden scheduled the oral argument on the same day that Winton is scheduled to appear in two arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the CIT argument is scheduled for 11 a.m., both of Winton's CAFC cases are set for 2 p.m.