Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
authority and significant discretion to protect the revenue of the United States by requiring enhanced bonding. Def.’s Resp. Br. 11-12 (citing Section 623 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1623 (2012); 19 C.F.R. § 113.13(d) (2016)). Plaintiff demonstrates inadequate likelihood of success on the merits to warrant granting a preliminary injunction. Even where a movant shows that it will be irreparably harmed in the absence of an injunction, “the movant must demonstrate at least a ‘fair chance of success on the merits’ for a preliminary injunction to be appropriate.” U.S. Ass’n of Imps. of Textiles & Apparel v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 413 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2005) (internal citations omitted); Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 690-91, 128 S.Ct. 2207, 171 L.Ed.2d 1 (2008) . The court will only set aside CBP’s enhanced
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the movant had to establish both of the first two factors ie likelihood of success and irreparable harm to receive a preliminary injunction
B. holding that the grant of an injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion but without deference to the legal conclusions of the trial court
C. holding that the standard for permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction with the one exception being that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than likelihood of success
D. holding it is an abuse of discretion to grant a preliminary injunction because difficult legal issues are present without even considering likelihood of success
E. recognizing the inappropriateness of a preliminary injunction where credibility determinations must be made but granting a preliminary injunction because the legal and factual issues have been sufficiently illuminated
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.