CIT Denies Two Motions, One to Liquidate and One to Enjoin Liquidation, in Indian Quartz Countertops AD Case

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 denied a motion seeking to dissolve an existing injunction against liquidation and another seeking to impose a new one in a case involving the antidumping duty rates for several Indian quartz countertop exporters.

Lawsuits from Cambria, a domestic petitioner, and Antique Group, a mandatory respondent in a recent administrative review of the AD order on Indian quartz surface products, have been consolidated into one case as each challenge different aspects of the final results of the Commerce Department’s 2020 administrative review. Antique Group is fighting the 323.12% AFA rate it received after it missed a deadline by several hours, while Cambria seeks to impose a 161.65% average rate on non-examined respondents instead of the 3.19% duty Commerce substituted in from its prior investigation (see 2311300052).

Several U.S. importers allied with Antique Group filed Nov. 17 to dissolve the injunction they were granted in February barring liquidation of a number of their entries, saying they expected litigation to drag on and needed access to their assets now. Cambria argued their reasons were not enough to allow them to modify their injunction.

Cambria filed on the same day to restore the injunction in the event that it's dissolved, and expand it to cover all entries subject to the 2020 administrative review (see 2312040066). Other plaintiffs opposed, saying that the case revolved around Antique Group’s missed deadline of five hours -- which Cambria had repeatedly pointed to as evidence of the exporter’s lack of cooperation with Commerce -- and Cambria was filing for its injunction more than eight months late. Cambria argued it fell into an exception to the injunction deadline because it had good cause for filing late.

The court rejected both motions Dec. 19.

Litigation is often a lengthy process, as the importers’ experienced lawyers should have known, Judge Mark Barnett said in his opinion. The parties’ desire for an outcome before litigation had ended didn't entitle them to them to relief, “particularly a mere ten months after first seeking the injunction,” the opinion said.

Barnett also said the importers’ aim of accessing their assets wasn't a changed circumstance, but rather a “change in business strategy.”

The court also denied Cambria’s motion for its own injunction, saying Cambria’s reasons didn't constitute good cause for its late filing. Cambria’s other concern, that a lack of any injunction would prevent it from receiving relief, was addressed when the court refused to dissolve the importers’ injunction, the court said.

(Cambria Company v. U.S., Slip Op. 23-186, CIT # 23-00007, dated 12/19/2023; Judge: Mark Barnett; Attorneys: Luke Meisner of Schagrin Associates for plaintiff Cambria Company; Jonathan Stoel of Hogan Lovells for consolidated plaintiffs Arizona Tile, M S International and PNS Clearance; Joshua Kurland for defendant U.S. government; and Julie Mendoza of Morris Manning for defendant-intervenor Federation of Indian Quartz Surface Industry)