Case law

Shikoku Chemicals Corp. v. United States

795 F. Supp. 417 · United States Court of International Trade · May 18, 1992

In the fifth and sixth administrative reviews, however, Commerce established a dumping margin of .81 and .91 percent, respectively, for plaintiffs’ DCA sales. … Conclusion Commerce abused its discretion and acted unreasonably in changing its allocation methodology for repacking costs in the latest reviews, thereby preventing plaintiffs from qualifying for consideration for revocation

USX Corp. v. United States

664 F. Supp. 519 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 3, 1987

that their content has not already been made available elsewhere in the public record, the court must balance the conflicting interests. 6 In order to gain access to *523 privileged documents, plaintiff “must demonstrate clearly … The Berg Declaration, however, did not establish dispositively the privileged status of the documents.

Farr Man and Co., Inc. v. United States

544 F. Supp. 908 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 26, 1982

* * * Article III of the treaty between the United States and Argentina entered into in the year 1853 upon which plaintiffs rely provides: The two high-contracting parties agree that any favor, exemption, privilege, or immunity … The legislative history relating to this amendment establishes the purpose for the inclusion of this language.

Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. v. United States

865 F. Supp. 2d 1300 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 19, 2012

guidance in this determination, the Supreme Court, in Arbaugh, applied a “readily administrable bright line” for distinguishing between jurisdictional requisites and claim- processing rules: If the legislature clearly … Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95 (1990) (noting that “[o]nce Congress has made such a waiver [of sovereign immunity] . . . making the rule of equitable tolling applicable to suits against the Government, in

Brother International Corp. v. United States

368 F. Supp. 2d 1345 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 29, 2005

] and not qualify as an ‘error in the construction of a law.’” … This Court applies this established principle to a broker’s classification decision.

Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. United States

403 F. Supp. 2d 1348 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 6, 2005

Customs’ Contentions Customs replies that Forest Labs has failed to establish that the imported HPMC qualifies for the duty free rate under subheading 3912.39.00 of the HTSUS. See Customs’ Mem. at 8-9. … It is Congress, not Customs that establishes the duty rates contained in HTSUS and that Customs has no authority to amend those rates. See id.

ACTWU LOCAL 1627, AFL-CIO v. Donovan

587 F. Supp. 74 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 19, 1984

In addition, the investigation established that Exide did not import any of the three types of batteries in question for use at the Cheektowaga plant. … The administrative record clearly evidences an increase, not a decrease, in Cheektowaga’s sales, production and employment from January 1980 through May 1981.

Automatic Plastic Molding, Inc. v. United States

26 Ct. Int'l Trade 1201 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 5, 2002

Facts Established at Trial The court finds that the following facts were established by credible evidence at trial. … Therefore, the court finds that HQRL 962378 does not have “power to persuade” and, thus, does not qualify for Skidmore deference. See Mead Corp. v.

Former Employees of Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor

27 Ct. Int'l Trade 1301 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 28, 2003

The first two types of “appropriate subdivisions” are expressly limited to one “firm”: either “an establishment in a multi-establishment firm” or “a distinct part or section of an establishment … The evidence clearly establishes that PLS and Quadrivius do not produce, directly or through an appropriate subdivision, an import impacted article.

Hor Liang Industrial Corp. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 3d 1310 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 24, 2018

Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 531 (1995), which states the general principle that ambiguities in a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity must be construed in favor of immunity. Oral Arg. Tr. at 41:16-19. … Accordingly, in this case, the court must decide whether Plaintiffs are among those for whom immunity has been waived.

Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States

816 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 26, 2012

The government agrees DSMC prevailed, see Def.’s Resp. at 21, but it argues DSMC’s petition fails to establish that DSMC was the party that authorized and incurred the legal fees in the underlying litigation or establish … Unification Church, 762 F.2d at 1079, 1083, 1091-92 (district court record clearly showed that only an EAJA-ineligible church association, and not any of the other three plaintiff members of that association, would have

Suntec Industries Co. v. United States

951 F. Supp. 2d 1341 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 6, 2013

Commerce advised: All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in the administrative reviews involving [nonmarket economy] countries must complete, as appropriate, either … Waivers of sovereign immunity are strictly construed, and any ambiguities must be resolved in favor of immunity. See Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 685 (1983); see also United States v.

Tampa Bay Fisheries, Inc. v. United States

825 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 20, 2012

Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the $22,000 payment establish no more than that Plaintiffs lent their “support” to parties who intended in the future to become petitioners. … the Byrd Amendment does not fail the equal protection review applicable to statutes that disadvantage protected speech.”); id. at 1360 (“Because it serves a substantial government interest, the Byrd Amendment is also clearly

J.S. Stone, Inc. v. United States

297 F. Supp. 2d 1333 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 31, 2003

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is precluded from challenging the results of the antidumping determination because, although it qualified as an interested party, it did not participate in the administrative proceedings. … Thus, Congress clearly envisioned “occasions when an aspect of an antidumping duty determination might fall within the court’s jurisdiction under section 1581(i).” Royal Business Machs., Inc. v.

Industrial Quimica del Nalon, S.A. v. United States

17 Ct. Int'l Trade 370 · United States Court of International Trade · May 17, 1993

Plaintiff was referring to the Court’s comment that “Commerce’s desire to obtain documentation should not fly in the face of established business practice, and should not be transformed into a do-or-die requirement.” … for a salary deduction, was clearly deductible as a circumstance of sale adjustment under Title 19 C.F.R. § 353.15 (b) (1986).

Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum & Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers v. United States

44 F. Supp. 2d 229 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 19, 1999

Plaintiff "rather, proposed a blind, punitive use of [facts otherwise available], which is clearly disfavored." Id. … The SAA does not clearly state that the verification should only occur as to an exporting member .

Advanced Tech. & Materials Co., Ltd. v. United States

938 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 11, 2013

Thus, Commerce determined that the “AT&M Entity is part of the [PRC]-wide entity and does not qualify for a separate rate.” Id. … Therefore, we find that the AT&M Entity is part of the PRC-wide entity and does not qualify for a separate rate.”

Wells Manufacturing Co. v. United States

677 F. Supp. 1239 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 8, 1987

If allowed to stand, plaintiff argues, importers will be given immunity from application of the countervailing laws when domestic manufacturers refuse to sell to them. … Therefore, it was clearly reasonable for the ITC to have considered such practices in making its determination.

Apple Computer, Inc. v. United States

749 F. Supp. 1142 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 19, 1990

Since the defendant has not established that the granting of a motion to alter or amend the judgment is appropriate, the motion is denied. … CONCLUSION It is the conclusion of the court that the defendant has failed to establish that the granting of a motion to amend or alter the judgment in Apple Computer, Inc. v.

Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States

389 F. Supp. 3d 1350 · United States Court of International Trade · May 24, 2019

Commerce concluded that Xugong, but not GTC, established independence from the government of China and therefore, under its practice, qualified for what Commerce terms a “separate rate,” i.e., an antidumping duty rate other … Should Aeolus be determined to qualify for a separate rate, it also will qualify for relief. III.