Case law

Government of Sri Lanka v. United States

308 F. Supp. 3d 1373 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 17, 2018

TCENTP Program The TCENTP program was established by Sections 51 and 52 of Sri Lanka’s Inland Revenue Act No. 10 of 2006. … Subsection (i) is clearly contingent upon export performance, as it requires that a company export non-traditional goods.

Cabana v. United States Secretary of Agriculture

29 Ct. Int'l Trade 884 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 1, 2005

The USDA maintains that Cabana does not qualify for TAA benefits and, therefore, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See id. … Cabana asserts that he submitted his application for benefits “along with business records clearly identifying the total salmon catch for both 2001 and 2002 as well as tax returns submitted to the Internal Revenue Service

Ovan International, Ltd. v. United States

49 F. Supp. 3d 1327 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 23, 2015

§1514(c)(1) that provide clear authority to Customs to establish additional regulatory requirements for protests. See 19 U.S.C. §1514(c)(1)(D) (“any other matter required by the Secretary by regulation”). … Supp. 2d at 1321-22, 1324-26, 1330 (finding that the subject letter did not qualify as a protest because it did not include any of the “mandatory” elements for a valid protest required by statute and regulation including

Macclenny Products v. United States

963 F. Supp. 2d 1348 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 22, 2014

Thus, where — as here — a waiver of sovereign immunity is at issue, the language of the statute must be strictly construed, and any ambiguities resolved in favor of immunity. FAA v. … Loo-by's use of the qualifier "in [a] perfect world”).

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. United States

14 Ct. Int'l Trade 195 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 23, 1990

The testimony establishes that the container is designed to be used with a temperature control device and that the device is only removed for maintenance. … Such evidence established that a 10 year depreciation schedule comported with industry approximations of value. The court therefore accepts Customs’s depreciation schedule.

Bar Bea Truck Leasing Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Int'l Trade 138 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 28, 1982

Fundamentally, administrative action is not immunized from judicial review merely because the agency is called upon to exercise discretion in passing upon applications and making decisions thereon. Cf. Adams v. … In applying the foregoing well-established principles to the instant case, defendants’ motion to dismiss must be denied.

Diamax Hawaii, Ltd. v. United States

4 Ct. Int'l Trade 162 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 26, 1982

So’s testimony, which the court found unconvincing, is clearly insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the appraisement by Customs. … The expression “whose attendance cannot reasonably be had” does not qualify the reference to customs agents. Id.

WWRD U.S., LLC v. United States

211 F. Supp. 3d 1365 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 1, 2017

9817.95 contains two relevant provisions: (1) subheading 9817.95.01, defined above; and (2) subheading 9817.95.05, which covers “Utilitarian items in the form of a three-dimensional representation of a symbol or motif clearly … Def.’s Mem. at 13 (merchandise must be “necessary and integral” to the ritual); Def.’s Reply at 9 (merchandise “must be clearly identifiable with and integral to performing the ritual”). 22 Section XXII includes “Special

Bond Street, Ltd. v. United States

521 F. Supp. 2d 1377 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 25, 2007

Indeed, this Court has interpreted the statutory time limits established for judicial review in a similar fashion. … Although the action before the court does not involve a publication requirement, section 1516a(a)(2)(A)(ii), much like the statutes discussed above, clearly indicates a specific triggering event to commence the 30-day period

Russ Berrie & Co., Inc. v. United States

57 F. Supp. 2d 1184 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 13, 1999

This use is clearly indicated by Christmas scenes or symbols depicted in the candle design. … Supp. at 889, the Court established several factors for consideration in complex scope inquires that are codified in 19 C.F.R. § 353.29(i)(2) (1997).

Pat Huval Restaurant & Oyster Bar, Inc. v. United States

547 F. Supp. 2d 1352 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 3, 2008

Furthermore, we are aware of no binding precedent establishing an exception under which statutes of limitations would not apply to the claims that Plaintiffs have raised. … Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (abrogation of state sovereign immunity where plaintiffs allege discrimination); Zenith, 401 U.S. 321 (antitrust); Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach.

Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. United States

24 Ct. Int'l Trade 1057 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 29, 2000

Either party may choose to put on different evidence which might resolve the issue more clearly. See United States v. … Cir. 1984) (evidence may demonstrate decision was clearly erroneous). See also J.E. Bernard & Co., 66 Cust. Ct., 545, 552, 324 F.

United States v. Rockwell Automation Inc.

462 F. Supp. 2d 1243 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 18, 2006

To qualify for the automatic bypass system, importers must first submit entry summaries to Customs. … Therefore, 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(2) clearly extends to Rockwell’s conduct at issue here.

Morris Costumes, Inc. v. United States

465 F. Supp. 2d 1345 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 6, 2006

. § 1581(i), because to do so would be to allow the plaintiff to circumvent the protest procedure of section 1514 in a way that Congress clearly did not intend. … not qualify as an ‘error in the construction of a law.’”

Jazz Photo Corp. v. United States

353 F. Supp. 2d 1327 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 17, 2004

To overcome this presumption, Jazz must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the single use cameras qualify for admission. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. United States, 6 F.3d 763, 769 (Fed. … operations qualify as “permissible repair” for any or all of those cameras.

RHP Bearings, Ltd. v. United States

83 F. Supp. 2d 1322 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 16, 1999

Torring-ton argues if the Court were to adopt RHP-NSK’s position for calculating CV profit, the Court would clearly violate both of these rules. See id. … A zero-priced transaction, however, does not qualify as a “sale” and, therefore, cannot be included in Commerce’s dumping margin calculations.

Libas, Ltd. v. United States

283 F. Supp. 2d 1327 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 13, 2003

The Supreme Court in Pierce held that “. . . the exception for ‘limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved’ must refer to attorneys ‘qualified for the proceedings’ in some specialized sense … Since we have no information that establishes any of these employees as members of the bar, they do not fall within the parameters of the $75 minimum. Bonanza, 11 CIT at 444.

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States

223 F. Supp. 2d 1349 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 9, 2002

The court also notes that the U.S. producers are largely long established integrated steel producers. … among qualified purchasers.

Seah Steel Vina Corp. v. United States

182 F. Supp. 3d 1316 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 31, 2016

Consequently, to qualify for an adjustment to its B&H values, SSV must satisfy two conditions. … Steel also asserts that, compared to regular J55, high-chromium J55 HRC renders the steel more immune to corrosion. U.S. Steel Br. 25. What is more, U.S.

POSCO v. United States

2025 CIT 100 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 8, 2025

are strictly followed, and . . . clearly set . . . so as to be capable of verification.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(D)(ii). … Commerce cannot use “the existence of the criteria per se to establish specificity.” Hyundai Steel, 659 F. Supp. 3d at 1342.