On February 16, 2010, the CIT issued its decision in American Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade v. United States in which Plaintiffs American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughn-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (collectively, Plaintiffs) sought an emergency injunction ordering CBP to liquidate certain antidumping entries pursuant to the amended results of an antidumping administrative review before February 17, 2010. The case involved the administrative review of an antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People’s Republic of China. The DOC rendered its final determination in the review in August 2009, assigning an antidumping margin of 29.98 percent for specified exporters of the entries subject to the review—a margin that was significantly higher than the cash deposit rate applicable during the period of review for the exporters of the subject entries. The DOC then amended its final determination in October 2009, assigning a new margin of 29.89 percent. Plaintiffs thereafter requested that the DOC take action to liquidate the subject entries pursuant to the amended results, expressing concern that if the subject entries were not liquidated by February 17, 2010—six months after publication of the initial final results—the entries would be deemed liquidated at the significantly lower cash deposit rate by operation of 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). The DOC responded that the subject entries would remain unliquidated as of February 17, 2010, and would not be deemed liquidated until six months after publication of the amended results. Plaintiff then filed the instant action seeking preliminary equitable relief. The CIT held that the Plaintiffs’ interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) was in error, and that the six-month period for deemed liquidation of the subject entries commenced upon publication of the amended results. Accordingly, the CIT ultimately denied injunctive relief, finding the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or that the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm. The CIT also found that the relief sought by the Plaintiffs “imposed a substantially greater hardship on the [US Government] because it interferes with a systematic approach to liquidation.” Finally, the CIT noted that the legally correct position of the Government—that the six-month period for deemed liquidation commenced upon publication of the amended results—established exactly the legal posture sought by Plaintiffs.