Countertop Exporters Protest Plaintiff's Motion to Enjoin Liquidation, Citing Another Missed Deadline

Several Indian quartz surface product exporters and U.S. importers oppose a U.S. quartz countertop manufacturer's bid for an injunction to suspend liquidation of Indian quartz surface product imports more than eight months after the deadline. The U.S. manufacturer’s motion was prompted by the consolidated plaintiffs’ attempt to dissolve their own, similar injunction (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).

The case concerns a Commerce administrative review of the antidumping duty order on imports of Indian quartz surface products entered in 2019-2021. During the review, one of the mandatory respondents, Indian company Antique Group, received an AFA AD rate of 323.12% after it missed a filing deadline by about five hours. To calculate its rate for non-individually reviewed respondents, Commerce rejected the expected method of including AFA rates in the average, which would have put non-selected respondents' rate at 161.65%, and arrived instead at a rate of 3.19%.

Cambria, a U.S. home goods manufacturer, has since sought at the Court of International Trade to have Commerce instead impose the 161.65% rate on the non-selected respondents. Antique Group, the company that received the AFA duty, as well as several other companies, filed their own lawsuit seeking to overturn Antique Group’s duty, and the cases were consolidated (see 2311300052).

Cambria filed a motion Nov. 17 for an injunction to suspend CBP liquidation of all Indian quartz surface product imports involved in the current proceedings. The motion arose because the Indian exporters and U.S. importers filed their own motion that day to partially dissolve the liquidation injunction they received in February.

Usually, parties must move to suspend liquidation within 30 days of filing their initial complaint, though exceptions will be made for “good reason” as long as opposing parties are not injured.

Cambria acknowledged the untimeliness of its motion -- it filed its initial complaint with CIT in February -- but argued good reason exists because most quartz surface product imports are already subject to a similar motion. Also, allowing CBP to liquidate Indian quartz surface product imports after the partial withdrawal of the earlier injunction would bar Cambria from receiving relief, it said. It also argued its motion, if successful, wouldn't impact opposing parties.

Consolidated plaintiffs Antique Group, Shivam Enterprises, Prism Johnson Limited, Arizona Tile LLC, M S International Inc. and PNS Clearance LLC all opposed Cambria’s motion in a filing Dec. 1. A defendant-intervenor, Federation of Indian Quartz Surface Industry, likewise filed in opposition that day.

The opposing plaintiffs said Cambria failed to establish good reason for CIT to accept its late motion. They also said its motion would negatively impact opposing parties.

The plaintiffs pointed out that Cambria has “lauded … ‘required adherence to filing deadlines’” in arguments in the case over Antique Group’s own missed deadline. They also said Cambria couldn’t use the existence of a similar injunction covering most products to excuse its own delay because that injunction was still sought after Cambria’s initial 30-day deadline had passed. Cambria therefore couldn’t have expected to rely on it when it missed its own deadline, they said.

They also challenged Cambria’s argument that relief wouldn't be available to it if its injunction wasn't granted. If that were true, they said, “all liquidation necessarily moots a litigant’s rights” and good cause would always exist, making the motion’s 30-day filing deadline meaningless.

They argued they would be damaged if Cambria’s injunction was granted because the products in question were theirs, not Cambria’s. They said they sought dissolution of their injunction because they wanted to just pay their duties rather than continue waiting through what could be a long, uncertain litigation process.

A defendant likewise opposed Cambria’s motion, calling it “strategic timing” instead of good cause and saying Cambria wouldn't be harmed by lack of an injunction because it wasn't the party actually receiving duty payments.

In turn, Cambria filed Dec. 1 against the consolidated plaintiffs' motion to dissolve their own injunction, arguing the law requires the injunction remain in place until legal proceedings are complete.