Kumar Industries et al v. United States

Slip Op. 26-45
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
KUMAR INDUSTRIES and BAJAJ
HEALTHCARE LIMITED,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
DEER PARK GLYCINE, LLC,
Defendant-Intervenor.
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Court No. 25-00081
OPINION AND ORDER
[Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Apply Statutory Injunction to All Entries in the
Period of Review.]
Dated: May 6, 2026
Lizbeth R. Levinson, Brittney R. Powell, and Alexander D. Keyser, Fox
Rothschild LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs Kumar Industries and Bajaj
Healthcare Limited
Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director,
Claudia Burke, Deputy Director, and Collin T. Mathias, Trial Attorney,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of
Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. Of counsel on the brief was
Samuil O. Agranovich, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement
and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
Case 1:25-cv-00081-JCG Document 48 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 4

Court No. 25-00081 	Page 2
David M. Schwartz, Michelle Meixuan Li, Kerem Bilge, and Aaron C.
Mandelbaum, Thompson Hine LLP, of Washington D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor
Deer Park Glycine, LLC
Choe-Groves, Judge: Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Apply
Statutory Injunction to All Entries in the Period of Review (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”).
Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 40. Defendant United States opposes Plaintiffs’ Motion.
Def.’s Resp. Pls.’ Mot. Apply Statutory Injunction All Entries Period of Review,
ECF No. 43. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion.
BACKGROUND
On September 25, 2025, Plaintiffs requested leave to file a motion for a
statutory injunction out of time, having missed the June 29, 2025 deadline. Pls.’
Unopposed Mot. Leave File Mot. Statutory Injunction Out Time, ECF No. 24. The
Court granted the motion and the statutory injunction on September 26, 2025, and
Plaintiffs later provided a letter to the Court to confirm that “all entries subject to
this appeal have not been liquidated.” Notice of Unliquidated Entries, ECF No.
30; see also Order (Sept. 26, 2025), ECF No. 27 (granting statutory injunction to
all shipments that entered the United States during the period of review (June 1,
2022, through May 31, 2023)).
Plaintiffs now state that thirteen entries of subject merchandise were
liquidated prior the Court’s entry of the statutory injunction, and that Plaintiffs’
Case 1:25-cv-00081-JCG Document 48 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 4

Court No. 25-00081 	Page 3
pursuit of administrative remedies to challenge the liquidation has been
unsuccessful. Pls.’ Mot. at 3 (“twelve shipments of subject merchandise . . . were
liquidated on September 5, 2025, . . . [o]ne additional shipment was liquidated on
August 29, 2025.”).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs request the Court to order a reversal of the liquidation of the
thirteen entries of subject merchandise and to order that their liquidation is
suspended pending the outcome of this case. Id.
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c).
Judicial review in countervailing and antidumping duty proceedings is governed by
19 U.S.C. § 1516a, which provides the Court with the power to enjoin liquidation.
19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a, 1516a(c). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
has interpreted 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c) to mean that liquidation is final unless a
statutory injunction was put in place prior to the liquidation. Yancheng Baolong
Biochemical Products Co., Ltd. v. United States, 406 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (“[I]f there is no injunction, liquidation is automatic under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(e) and § 1516a(c)(1), and any decision on the merits of a liquidation
challenge after liquidation has taken place is without effect.”); Zenith Radio Corp.
v. United States, 710 F.2d 806, 810 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The statutory scheme has no
provision permitting reliquidation in this case or imposition of higher dumping
Case 1:25-cv-00081-JCG Document 48 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 4

Court No. 25-00081 	Page 4
duties after liquidation if Zenith is successful on the merits. Once liquidation
occurs, a subsequent decision by the trial court on the merits of Zenith’s challenge
can have no effect on the dumping duties assessed[.]”).
Because the liquidation of the thirteen entries of subject merchandise
occurred before Plaintiffs belatedly requested the statutory injunction, the
liquidation is final. Notably, the liquidation occurred after the relevant deadline.
If Plaintiffs had made a timely request for a statutory injunction, the entries would
not have been liquidated, and the status quo would have been preserved by a timely
request for the statutory injunction.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion, ECF No. 40, and all other papers
and proceedings in this action, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion, ECF No. 40, is denied.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: 	May 6, 2026
New York, New York
Case 1:25-cv-00081-JCG Document 48 Filed 05/06/26 Page 4 of 4