US Says CIT Should Deny Move for Injunction on Cash Deposits in Rebar AD Case
The Court of International Trade should reject a motion for a preliminary injunction against cash deposits in an antidumping duty case since the plaintiffs "provide no probative evidence" for the accuracy of the claims in the declarations submitted in support for the claim of irreparable harm, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 28 reply brief. Further, the plaintiffs overstate their case on the merits and overlook parts of the record that cut against its position, the government said (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The case concerns the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico in which Grupo Simec and Deacero served as the mandatory respondents. During the review, Simec timely submitted its questionnaire responses, but it filed multiple requests for deadline extensions; Commerce granted only some. The plaintiffs said Simec's supplemental response was submitted "under extreme time-constraints." The agency then rejected Simec's request to file additional relevant factual information in the review. The result was a zero percent margin for Deacero and a 66.7% adverse facts available rate for Simec.
The plaintiffs, led by Simec, then took to the trade court and filed for a PI against the cash deposits, claiming, in part, that it needs the injunction or else it will suffer irreparable reputational and financial harm. The U.S. countered that the respondent failed to show that immediate irreparable harm is likely, absent the injunction. The trade court repeatedly has found that financial losses are not enough to show irreparable harm, the government noted. Further, the only evidence Simec proferrs for its harm claims are two unsworn declarations from Simec managers and two letters from former company representatives.
"These self-serving declarations and letters, however, are not otherwise substantiated, are conclusory, and do not establish immediate and irreparable harm," the brief said. "And neither has Grupo Simec offered to make these company representatives available for deposition and/or cross-examination. ... Critically, even if these vague and speculative assertions were substantiated with evidence, which they are not, Grupo Simec does not explain how the injunction could remedy any alleged 'damage,' as Grupo Simec was previously subjected to an antidumping duty rate of 66.70 percent, and, again, at least one of its customers purchased rebar from it at that rate."
The government further claimed that Simec failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits since Commerce's use of total adverse facts available over a host of deficiencies in Simec's submissions is backed by substantial evidence. "Finally, Grupo Simec argues that Commerce erred in finding that it had failed to cooperate and that the rate applied is unduly punitive," the brief said. "These arguments are meritless. Commerce explained in the final results that Grupo Simec 'failed to cooperate to the best of its ability when it did not remedy the questionnaire deficiencies within the allotted time frame, despite Commerce effectively granting [it] all the additional time it requested prior to the deadline.'"