Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States

Slip Op. 2-
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
PIPE & PILING SUPPLIES,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
AMERICAN 	LINE 	PIPE 	PRODUCERS
ASSOCIATION TRADE COMMITTEE,
Defendant-Intervenor.
Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge
Court No. 24-00211
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
[The court grants plaintiff’s motion for injunction pending appeal.]
Dated: February 11, 2026
Alexander Hume Schaefer, Crowell & Moring, LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff Pipe &
Piling Supplies. With him on the brief were Meaghan Allyssa Katz, Pierce Jungwoon Lee, and
Weronika Bukowski.
Isabelle Aubrun, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for the defendant. Of counsel
on the brief was Fee Pauwels, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S.
Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.
Timothy C. Brightbill, Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor American
Line Pipe Producers Association Trade Committee. With him on the brief were Elizabeth
Seungyon Lee, Laura El-Sabaawi, Paul J. Coyle, and Paul A. Devamithran.
Restani, Judge: 	Plaintiff Pipe & Piling Supplies seeks an injunction pending appeal.
Partial Consent Mot. for Inj. Pending Appeal, ECF No. 39 (Feb. 10, 2026) (“Pl. Mot. for Inj.”).
See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1291; U.S. Ct. Int’l Trade R. 62; Fed. R. App. P. 8. The court has ruled
Case 1:24-cv-00211-JAR Document 40 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4

Court No. 24-00211 	Page 2
that it has no jurisdiction in this matter, Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, 798 F. Supp. 3d
1370, 1378 (CIT 2025), and sees no reason to doubt that conclusion. The court has not examined
the underlying merits of the action, but ordinarily suits brought before the court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1581(c) jurisdiction, such as this, present enough doubt to warrant full consideration by
the court and statutory injunctive relief, see 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(c), (e), once jurisdiction is
established.
More importantly, because the court found it had no jurisdiction to do so, it stated that it
“denies Pipe & Piling’s motion for a statutory injunction.” Pipe & Piling, 798 F. Supp. 3d at 1378
(citation modified). 	This terminated any temporary injunction that was extant pending the
resolution of the jurisdictional dispute. See Scheduling Order at 2, ECF No. 22 (Feb. 19, 2025)
(“temporarily enjoin[ing] Defendant from liquidating or permitting liquidation of any unliquidated
entries of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Canada,” in relevant part, pending resolution of the
Motion to Dismiss). 	Thus, the only issue now before the court is whether it should grant an
injunction of liquidation pending appeal. 1 	See Pl. Mot. for Inj. 	An injunction pending appeal
requires the satisfaction of four factors: “(1) whether the injunction applicant has made a strong
showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably
injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the injunction will substantially injure the other
parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” 	Amsted Rail Co. v.
U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 607 F. Supp. 3d 1293, 1289 (CIT 2022) (citation modified) (citation
omitted).
1 “The general weight of the authority among district courts and the Court of International Trade
indicates that courts may consider motions for injunction pending appeal after dismissal for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.” 	Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 607 F. Supp. 3d
1293, 1289 n.5 (CIT 2022) (collecting cases).
Case 1:24-cv-00211-JAR Document 40 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4

Court No. 24-00211 	Page 3
Plaintiff alleges deemed liquidation under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d), based on no active
liquidation by the government, is imminent for the set of entries at issue in the underlying
administrative review. Pl. Mot. for Inj. at 1. Thus, the court assumes this matter is not currently
moot. No party has alleged that it is. If the court had found that it had jurisdiction, it would have
granted the relief sought in the normal course. That is, it would have granted injunctive relief from
the outset under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(c), (e).
The government consents to the primary relief sought, that is injunction of liquidation
pending appeal. Pl. Mot. for Inj. at 2. Defendant-intervenor takes no position. Id.
Plaintiff filed its notice of appeal on November 7, 2025, see Notice of Appeal of Orders,
ECF No. 37 (Nov. 7, 2025), but did not seek injunctive relief at that time. No party has objected
to an injunction pending appeal based on delay in seeking this relief for several months. Because
plaintiff will lose the opportunity to press its appeal if liquidation is not enjoined, it will suffer
irreparable harm. See Potter-Roemer, Inc. v. United States, 702 F. Supp. 911, 913 (CIT 1988) (“If
liquidation of the reviewed entries occurs, the Court of Appeals will lose jurisdiction to hear the
appeal, because the action would be rendered moot. Liquidation in [] case[s] [brought under 28
U.S.C. § 1581(c)] constitutes irreparable harm.”) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710
F.2d 806, 810 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 427 F. Supp.
3d 1375, 1382 (CIT 2020) (“The danger of liquidation pending judicial review . . . constitutes
irreparable harm.”). This factor outweighs what the court views as little chance of success on the
merits. Further, no party has alleged it will be harmed by the injunction or that a public interest
would not be served by granting it.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a stay of liquidation pending appeal is GRANTED in
the terms proposed by plaintiff as follow:
Case 1:24-cv-00211-JAR Document 40 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4

Court No. 24-00211 	Page 4
ORDERED that Defendant-Appellee, United States, together with its delegates, officers,
agents, and servants, including employees of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S.
Department of Commerce, is enjoined during the pendency of this litigation, including any
appeals, from issuing instructions to liquidate or making or permitting liquidation of any
unliquidated entries of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Canada:
1. 	That were produced and/ or exported by Pipe & Piling Supplies;
2. 	That 	were the 	subject 	of 	the 	United 	States Department 	of 	Commerce’s 	final
determination in Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Canada, 89 Fed. Reg. 86,787 (Oct.
31, 2024);
3. 	That were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, during the period
May 1, 2022, through April 30, 2023;
and it is further
ORDERED that the entries subject to this injunction shall be liquidated in accordance with
the final court decision in this action, including all appeals and remand proceedings; and it is
further
ORDERED that any entries inadvertently liquidated after this order is signed but before
this injunction is fully implemented by U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall be promptly
returned to unliquidated status and suspended in accordance with this injunction.
/s/ Jane A. Restani
Jane A. Restani, Judge
Dated: February 11, 2026
New York, New York
Case 1:24-cv-00211-JAR Document 40 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4