American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, Court No. 82-10-01355

CourtU.S. Court of International Trade
Citation7 CIT 2,578 F. Supp. 1405
Docket Number83-3-00371 and 83-3-00455.,Court No. 82-10-01355,83-1-00101
PartiesAMERICAN SPRING WIRE CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Trefileries Et Cableries Chiers Chatillon Gorcy and Companhia Siderurgica Belgo-Mineira, Interventors.
Decision Date19 January 1984

578 F. Supp. 1405
7 CIT 2

AMERICAN SPRING WIRE CORP., et al., Plaintiffs,
Trefileries Et Cableries Chiers Chatillon Gorcy and Companhia Siderurgica Belgo-Mineira, Interventors.

Court Nos. 82-10-01355, 83-1-00101, 83-3-00371 and 83-3-00455.

United States Court of International Trade.

January 19, 1984.

Stewart & Stewart, Washington, D.C. (Eugene L. Stewart, Terence P. Stewart, Paul W. Jameson and Kathleen T. Weaver, Washington, D.C., on brief), for plaintiffs.

Michael H. Stein, Gen. Counsel, Michael P. Mabile, Asst. Gen. Counsel, U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n, Washington, D.C. (Jack M. Simmons, III, Washington, D.C., on brief), for defendant.

Fox, Glynn & Melamed, New York City (Raymond F. Steckel and Garry P. McCormack, New York City, on brief), for intervenor Trefileries et Cableries Chiers Chatillon Gorcy.

Wald, Harkrader & Ross, Washington, D.C. (Christopher Dunn, Washington, D.C., on brief), for intervenor Companhia Siderurgica Belgo-Mineira.

Opinion and Order

MALETZ, Senior Judge:

The plaintiffs in this consolidated action, representing the American steel wire strand industry, have made application for a preliminary injunction. They ask the court to enjoin the liquidation of entries of steel wire strand from Brazil, France, Spain and the United Kingdom pending resolution of their challenge to the final negative

578 F. Supp. 1406
injury determinations by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC or Commission). See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b) and 1673d(b) (1982). Those four ITC determinations were made on September 1, 1982 for Spain, see 47 Fed.Reg. 38,648; on December 15, 1982 for France, see 47 Fed. Reg. 56,213; on February 9, 1983 for the United Kingdom, see 48 Fed.Reg. 6,044; and on March 23, 1983 for Brazil, see 48 Fed.Reg. 12,143. With the exception of the United Kingdom case involving dumped steel wire strand, all the ITC determinations stemmed from affirmative findings by the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, that the imports were being subsidized

Four complaints were timely filed with this court for each of the ITC determinations. In view of the commonality of issues among the four cases—whether the Commission erred in not cumulating the imports from all four countries, whether it erred in its conclusions regarding price suppression and the importance of price in general, and whether the Commission erred in assaying the impact of the imports on the American industry—the actions were consolidated on July 25, 1983. That same day plaintiffs' request for access to confidential information was also granted, which information was provided by the Commission up to and through the middle of November, 1983. Approximately one month later, on December 19th, plaintiffs filed motions for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and judgment upon the agency record. This court denied their motion for a temporary restraining order on December 20th, and heard plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on January 4, 1984. It is to a consideration of that motion that the court now turns.

In order to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must show (1) that they will be immediately and irreparably injured; (2) that there is a likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that the public interest would be better served by the relief requested; and (4) that the balance of hardship on all the parties favors petitioners. Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806, 809 (Fed.Cir.1983). See also S.J. Stile Associates, Ltd. v. Snyder, 646 F.2d 522, 525, 68 CCPA 27 (1981); The Timken Co. v. United States, 6 CIT ___, 569 F.Supp. 65, 68 (1983); AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. United States, 575 F.Supp. 1285 (CIT 1983). Considering for the moment the first of these four criteria, plaintiffs have submitted no affidavits and have offered no testimony to substantiate their claim of irreparable injury. Although at the hearing counsel for plaintiffs recited some Commerce Department import statistics for steel wire strand—allegedly indicating that the price for imported steel wire strand had declined in 1983— there is no indication whether that price was c.i.f., f.o.b. or the importers' sales price. Instead they rely exclusively upon the Federal Circuit's Zenith Radio Corp. decision for their showing of irreparable injury. The court finds plaintiffs' reliance on Zenith misplaced.

Of critical importance in Zenith was that irreparable injury was conclusively presumed. Id. at 810. For Zenith's statutory right to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Canadian Wheat Bd. v. U.S., Slip Op. 08-112. Court No. 07-00058.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • October 20, 2008
    ...made during the initial investigation stage of an AD/CVD proceeding. See, e.g., American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 578 F.Supp. 1405 (CIT See id. at ___, 461 F.Supp.2d at 1363-64 (footnote omitted). Accordingly, the Court reasoned that the subsections' legislative history confirmed......
  • Wind Tower Trade Coal. v. United States, Slip Op. 13–44.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • March 29, 2013
    ...harm because the underlying proceeding was an investigation, not an administrative review. See American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 7 CIT 2, 5, 578 F.Supp. 1405, 1408 (1984) (if court is reviewing “a final agency determination under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1303, 1671d or 1673d, the party seeki......
  • Smith Corona Corp. v. US, Court No. 87-02-00157.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • December 31, 1987 action such as this where suspension is sought for future liquidations. The court relied on American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 7 CIT 2, 578 F.Supp. 1405 (1984), and also cited Timken Company v. United States, 6 CIT 75, 569 F.Supp. 65 The plaintiff relies heavily on Timken, whic......
  • Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 15–39.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • April 27, 2015 here, the final results of the investigation were affirmative, an injunction may issue. Compare Am. Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 7 CIT 2, 5–6, 578 F.Supp. 1405, 1407–08 (1984), with Wind Tower, 741 F.3d at 100, Husteel, 38 CIT at ––––, 34 F.Supp.3d at 1359–62, 1363–64, and Wind To......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT