Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co., Ltd. v. United States

2025 CIT 107

• Court: United States Court of International Trade
• Decided: August 20, 2025
• Docket: 24-00228
• Status: Published

Opinion

Slip Op. 25-107

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

JIANGSU DINGSHENG NEW MATERIALS JOINT-STOCK CO., LTD., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES, Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge Defendant, Court No. 24-00228 and

ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION TRADE ENFORCEMENT WORKING GROUP AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, ET AL.,

Defendant-Intervenors.

OPINION AND ORDER

[Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay.]

Dated: August 20, 2025

Ned H. Marshak, Dharmendra N. Choudhary, and Jordan C. Kahn, Grunfeld Desiderio Lebowitz Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, of New York, and Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co., Ltd., Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co., Limited (Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co., Ltd.), Hangzhou Dingsheng Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou Dingsheng Import and Export Co., Ltd.), Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Teemful Aluminium Co., Ltd., Inner Mongolia Liansheng New Energy Material Co., Ltd., Inner Mongolia Xinxing New Energy Material Co., Ltd. (Inner Mongolia Xinxing New Material Co.), Dingsheng New Materials Co., Ltd., and Prosvic Sales Inc. Court No. 24-00228 Page 2

Christopher A. Berridge, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. On the brief were Brett A. Shumate Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of Counsel was Shanni Alon, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.

John M. Herrmann, II, Joshua R. Morey, Matthew G. Pereira, and Paul C. Rosenthal, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenors Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group and its Individual Members, JW Aluminum Company, Novelis Corporation, and Reynolds Consumer Products LLC.

Kelly, Judge: Before the Court is Plaintiffs Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials

Joint-Stock Co., Ltd.; Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co.,

Limited (Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co., Ltd.);

Hangzhou Dingsheng Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou Dingsheng Import and

Export Co., Ltd.); Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Teemful

Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Inner Mongolia Liansheng New Energy Material Co., Ltd.;

Inner Mongolia Xinxing New Energy Material Co., Ltd. (Inner Mongolia Xinxing New

Material Co.); Dingsheng New Materials Co., Ltd.; and Prosvic Sales Inc.’s

(collectively, “Dingsheng” or “Plaintiffs”) motion to stay proceedings pending the final

disposition of Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States,

No. 23-00264, 2025 WL 2092386 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2025) (“Jiangsu I”). Jiangsu

Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co., Ltd., et al. Mot. to Stay, July 25, 2025,

ECF No. 30 (“Pl. Mot. to Stay”). For the reasons that follow, Dingsheng’s motion to

stay is denied. Court No. 24-00228 Page 3

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs ask this Court to stay this case concerning the Fifth Administrative

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Foil from the People’s Republic

of China for the period of review (“POR”) 2022–2023 (“Fifth Review”) pending the

appeal of the Fourth Administrative Review POR 2021-2022 (“Fourth Review”) in

Jiangsu I. Pl. Mot. to Stay at 1–2. In this case, Plaintiffs challenge Commerce’s (1)

selection of Romania as the primary surrogate country, (2) calculation of Dingsheng’s

surrogate financial ratios using a Romanian financial statement, (3) rejection of

Bulgaria as the primary surrogate country, (4) refusal to grant Dingsheng a double

remedies adjustment, (5) refusal to grant all Dingsheng companies a separate rate,

and (6) liquidation instructions. Pl. Am. Compl., Jan. 31, 2023, ECF No. 9. Defendant

and Defendant-Intervenors both oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to stay. Defendant’s

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay, August 15, 2025, ECF No. 31 (“Def. Opp. To

Pl. Mot. to Stay”); Defendant-Intervenors’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay,

August 15, 2025, ECF No. 32 (“Def. Int. Resp. to Pl. Mot. to Stay”). Plaintiffs initiated

this action on December 12, 2024. See Summons, Dec. 12, 2024, ECF No. 1.

JURISDICTION

This court has jurisdiction according to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(a)(2)(A)(i),

1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2018), and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2018). Court No. 24-00228 Page 4

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs ask this Court to stay these proceedings. Pl. Mot. to Stay at 1.

Plaintiffs contend that the Court should stay this case because the core legal issues

are “identical,” including the double remedies adjustment issue remanded in the

previous case. Pl. Mot. to Stay at 5 (citing Jiangsu I, 2025 WL 2092386 at *6).

Plaintiffs further assert that a stay would save resources, as Commerce would have

a “clear path forward” to address the double remedies issue once the appeal in

Jiangsu I is final. Id. at 5. Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that a stay would not cause

any “inequity or hardship” to the Defendant or Defendant-Intervenors. Id. at 6–7.

Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors argue the stay should be denied because (i)

the disputed issues involve questions of fact which depend on distinct records, and

(ii) Plaintiffs have not shown that a stay would facilitate efficiency or conserve

resources. Def. Opp. to Pl. Mot. to Stay at 4–6; Def. Int. Resp. to Pl. Mot. to Stay at

2–6. Additionally, Defendant argues that the separate rate issue raised in the Fifth

Review was not raised in the Fourth Review and therefore resolution of Jiangsu I will

not address all the issues in this case. Def. Opp. to Pl. Mot. to Stay at 5. Finally,

Defendant-Intervenors argue that if a stay were granted, it should be of limited scope

and duration. 1 Def. Int. Resp. to Pl. Mot. to Stay at 8–9.

1 The Court does not need to reach Defendant-Intervenors’ proposed limitation on the

nature of the stay because Plaintiffs’ motion to stay is denied. Court No. 24-00228 Page 5

Courts have the authority to stay proceedings to promote efficiency and

conserve time and effort for the court and the parties. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.

248, 254–55 (1936). Although the decision to grant or deny a stay is at the court's

discretion, courts must weigh and balance competing interests. See id. First, courts

recognize that “some harm is inherent in any denial of the right to proceed” because

parties have an interest in the speedy resolution of disputes before the Court. Kaptan

Demir Celik Endustrisi Ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 592 F. Supp. 3d 1332, 1338

(Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (citing Neenah Foundry Co. v. United States, 24 C.I.T. 202, 205

(Ct. Int’l Trade 2000)). Typically, “speculative claims regarding the possible impact

of a future decision on the disposition of the case at bar do not suffice to warrant a

stay.” See Bldg. Sys. De Mexico S.A de C.V. v. United States, 463 F. Supp. 3d 1344,

1348 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (collecting cases). Second, courts may order a stay in cases

where the extent of the delay is not excessively long or oppressive to the parties. See

Landis, 299 U.S. at 256. Indeed, “in deciding to stay proceedings indefinitely,” courts

must identify a “pressing need” for the delay, as timeliness is courts’ “paramount

obligation” in balancing the parties’ interests. Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. United

States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (denying a stay where resolution of a

prior case was not a necessary precursor to resolution of the case at bar).

A stay here would not promote efficiency or conserve resources for the Court

or the parties simply because some issues overlap with Jiangsu I. Although the

reviews may involve similar issues, the issues implicate facts unique to each record. Court No. 24-00228 Page 6

Each administrative review is a separate exercise of Commerce’s authority that

allows for different conclusions based on different facts in the record. See Qingdao

Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2014); but see

An Giang Agric. & Food Imp. Export Co. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1162,

1163–64 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) (involving a legal issue); Garg Tube Export LLP v.

United States, Consol. Court No. 21-00169-CRK, Aug. 5, 2021, ECF No. 30 (same).

The resolution of Jiangsu I is not a necessary precursor to the resolution of the

present case. See Cherokee Nation, 124 F.3d at 1416. Because the Court will assess

the facts of the Fifth Review separately from any factual determinations in the

Fourth Review, a stay would not save time or effort for either the Court or the parties.

Plaintiffs’ arguments in favor of a stay fall short. Plaintiffs claim that

resolving the Fourth Review will provide a “clear path forward” for the present case,

without explaining how a stay would “clear the path.” Pl. Mot. to Stay at 5. Plaintiffs

state that although this Court sustained Commerce’s surrogate country selection in

the Fourth Review, they may still appeal to the Court of Appeals. Id. However,

Plaintiffs do not suggest that if the Court of Appeals sustains Commerce’s

determination, they would voluntarily dismiss their claims concerning the selection

in this case. Id. Finally, the complaint for the Fifth Review raises an issue not

present in Jiangsu I. Pl. Am. Compl. at 17–28. Plaintiffs request a stay for all claims,

Pl. Mot. to Stay at 1–2, yet resolution of the issues in Jiangsu I could not resolve the

additional issue raised in this case. See Bldg. Sys. De Mexico S.A. de C.V., 463 F. Court No. 24-00228 Page 7

Supp. 3d at 1348. Plaintiffs argue there is “no evidence that the other parties will

face any hardship if the Court grants the stay.” Pl. Mot. to Stay at 2, 6–7. Plaintiffs’

claim ignores the “harm [ ] inherent in any denial of the right to proceed.” See Neenah

Foundry Co., 24 C.I.T. at 205. Granting a stay in this case serves no purpose other

than to delay the resolution of this case in contravention of the Court's objective to

ensure the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and

proceeding.” U.S. Ct. Int'l Trade R. 1.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is

ORDERED that Dingsheng’s motion to stay is denied.

/s/ Claire R. Kelly Claire R. Kelly, Judge

Dated: August 20, 2025 New York, New York