Case law

Fakhri v. United States

2007 CIT 126 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 20, 2007

The Federal Circuit has clearly stated its position on this issue. … Therefore, unclean hands is clearly available to bar any such equitable relief it seeks.

United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc.

442 F. Supp. 2d 1290 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 28, 2006

Likewise, subsection B is inapposite because no “constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity” is invoked in this matter. 5 U.S.C. § 706(B). United States v. … Rather, the nonmovant must present “specific facts” that establish a genuine issue of triable fact. Id.

United States v. Pan Pacific Textile Group, Inc.

395 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 26, 2005

The responsibilities delegated by Tao and accepted by Juang clearly constituted the basis of an agency relationship between Juang and defendants. … In the instant case, defendants do not qualify for the exception, since they benefitted from Juang’s fraud.

Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 490 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 6, 1995

As indicated, Commerce established a benchmark rate based on the FFA rate, which was to be the minimum interest rate on all PROEXPO loans for flowers exported to the United States from Colombia. See 51 Fed. … Under § 355.25(a)(1), however, it must be shown that the government took clearly identifiable actions to abolish the countervailable benefits as to the merchandise at issue.

Glaxo Wellcome Inc. v. United States

126 F. Supp. 2d 581 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 21, 2000

The Proclamation further stated that the Section A modifications, such as that establishing the new subheading 3004.90.90, “shall be effective with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, … In sum, since the Proclamation clearly does not specially provide for the rate of duty applicable to 1994 I.T. entries, by default the provisions of § 1315(a)(2) and 19 C.F.R.

CVB, Inc. v. United States

681 F. Supp. 3d 1313 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 8, 2024

First, the rule protects confidential and business proprietary information by clearly identifying it for the parties and the Court. … Though the Commission may be an “independent” agency, it is not immune to legal and democratic accountability. Cf. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1333(g).

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States

753 F. Supp. 3d 1355 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 16, 2025

, and the amount of, a subsidy . . . if— (I) eligibility is automatic, (II) the criteria or conditions for eligibility are strictly followed, and (III) the criteria or conditions are clearly set forth … Appx16457. 10 As here, see note 8, in Hyundai III Commerce also relied on the list of qualifying subsectors to find de jure specific- ity. See 701 F. Supp. 3d at 1412.

Danze, Inc. v. United States

319 F. Supp. 3d 1312 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 19, 2018

Rather, “the modification or adaptation must be significant so as to clearly render the article for use by handicapped persons.” Id. … However, none of the cited rulings establish that mere compliance with ADA standards warrants duty-free treatment.

Humane Society of the United States v. Bush

159 F. Supp. 2d 707 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 23, 2001

The “government bears the burden of establishing that its position was substantially justified or that special circumstances should preclude an award under the EAJA.” Traveler Trading Co. v. … “Humane II clearly established the legal standard for what constitutes reason to believe under 16 U.S.C. § 1826a(b)(1)(B).” Humane III, 44 F. Supp. 2d at 279 (referring to Humane Society v. Brown, 20 CIT 277, 920 F.

Di Jub Leasing Corp. v. United States

505 F. Supp. 1113 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 5, 1980

On the contrary, the Judiciary Committee commented (H.R.Rep.No.96-1235, 46 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1980, p. 7116): * * * In keeping with the underlying policy of this legislation [H.R.7540] to establish a uniformity of … Clearly, these two critical sworn statements are contradictory. On July 2, 1979, Mr.

RBW, INC. v. United States

632 F. Supp. 13 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 13, 1986

Both of .these contentions depend upon the premise that the merchandise qualifies as puzzles within the meaning of item 735.20. … Defendant asserts that item 735.-20 clearly and unambiguously provides for puzzles, without limitation to any particular type of puzzles.

Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. United States

26 Ct. Int'l Trade 1262 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 25, 2002

Perhaps one could establish a standard that any painting that takes an assembled article out of the norm for that article is disqualifying. That of course, is not a bright line test. … The various requirements for establishing entitlement to the exemption apply only to the American-made components of the assembly. (e) Subassembly.

Hornos Electricos De Venezuela, S.A. v. United States

285 F. Supp. 2d 1353 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 29, 2003

An event is unusual in nature if it “possesses a high degree of abnormality and is of a type clearly unrelated to, or only incidentally related to, the ordinary and typical activities of the enterprise.” … or producer establishes the material terms of sale.’”

Arbor Foods, Inc. v. United States

607 F. Supp. 1474 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 13, 1985

Customs’ establishment of a “position” would be along the same lines as that of an “established and uniform practice” under 19 U.S.C. § 1315 (d) (1982). … Such goods are clearly prohibited from entry. Customs need not carry out useless formulations in such a case.

Lee v. United States

196 F. Supp. 2d 1351 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 29, 2002

Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (“[s]overeign immunity is jurisdictional in nature”). … A penalty assessed against a broker qualifies easily as a “duty imposed by law,” and thus is a “debt or obligation” for purposes of 19 C.F.R. § 111.29. F.

TIE Communications, Inc. v. United States

18 Ct. Int'l Trade 358 · United States Court of International Trade · May 5, 1994

The Court adds that section 1592(c)(5) provides for “forfeiture” to “protect the revenue” of the United States; a term identical to one qualifying term in section 1621, “forfeiture.” … Defendants’ claim that TIE’s second count should be dismissed because TIE has alleged a tort claim (i.e., fraud) which is specifically excluded from the torts to which the government has waived sovereign immunity under the

Commercial Aluminum Cookware Co. v. United States

20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1007 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 13, 1996

Because “lids” are clearly embraced eo nomine within “[closures imported separately” of subheading 7010.90.20, HTSUS, plaintiff reasons, and because there are no express limitations — other than that the closures be “of glass … A plain reading of the heading reveals these limitations only apply to those items that precede the qualifying language.

American Motorists Ins. Co. v. United States

8 F. Supp. 2d 874 · United States Court of International Trade · May 21, 1998

Interest is not recoverable in a suit against the United States “in the absence of an express waiver of sovereign immunity from an award of interest.” Library of Congress v. … As all of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2644 appear to have been satisfied, plaintiff is clearly entitled to interest on the refunded amount.

Corus Group PLC v. Bush

217 F. Supp. 2d 1347 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 9, 2002

Defendants argue that the Act establishes that the end of one Commissioner’s term necessarily creates a “vacancy.” … At best, Plaintiffs can establish that the question of whether a vacancy exists under § 1330 is open.17 As such, Plaintiffs cannot establish that it is very likely to succeed to on this issue. 2.

Depersia v. United States

637 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 11, 2009

. § 1641(b)(2) provides that: Before granting the license, the Secretary may require an applicant to show any facts deemed necessary to establish that the applicant is of good moral character and qualified … Clearly, both provisions afford CBP a degree of latitude in making determinations based upon certain criteria.