Case law

AutoAlliance International, Inc. v. United States

240 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 22, 2002

In this case, AAI bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. … Customs clearly denied AAI’s protest as to valuation, just as Customs denied the duty-free claim in Novell.

Böhler-Uddeholm Corp. v. United States

946 F. Supp. 1003 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 14, 1996

The court is unable to accept this qualified application. Id. In addition, it would be impractical to apply today’s threshold test based upon the evidence available in 1976. … It is established that Bethlehem Steel and Crucible Steel manufactured plastic mold steel in 1976 as demonstrated by each company's bro *1006 chures.

Comm. Overseeing Action for Lumber Int'l Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States

2019 CIT 136 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 4, 2019

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. See Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006). … See I&D Mem. at 22 (concluding that “a company qualifying for a CVD expedited review is not a new shipper”); compare 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(k)(3)(i), and id. § 351.214(k)(3)(ii), with id. § 351.214(g)(2), and id.

Jewelpak Corp. v. United States

97 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 13, 2000

Clearly the spectrum 4 The Government does not dispute that such boxes would be classified under 4202. … The first of these definitions clearly does not encompass the boxes here at issue, while the second does.

United States v. Great American Ins. Co. of Ny

791 F. Supp. 2d 1337 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 31, 2011

The STBs clearly establish Great American’s liability as surety. … This memorandum, discussed in the Notice of Rescission, clearly communicates that a consequence of the rescission would be to establish the antidumping duty rate for the Coastal Entries at the “as entered rate.”24

Nsk Ltd. v. United States

170 F. Supp. 2d 1280 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 6, 2001

NSK maintains that although it may not have clearly expressed its argument in those submissions, it clearly raised the issue of appropriate LOT matches and adjustments before Commerce and that the issue is ripe for review … Rather, to be supported by substantial evidence, Commerce must clearly articulate: (1) “why it Consol.

United States v. Aegis Sec. Ins. Co.

2019 CIT 162 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 17, 2019

If this documentation established that any of Tricots’ entries, or the materials therein, qualified as originating goods, Tricots would have brought it forward in its cross-motion for summary judgment. … For its part, the Government argues that Customs’ regulations clearly establish the documentation necessary to claim eligibility under the Tariff Preference Levels Program, and the timing for making such a claim:

Nakajima All Co., Ltd. v. United States

691 F. Supp. 358 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 22, 1988

The court, in Sierra Club , was guided by the following in its review of the agency’s delay: It is well established that, in conducting this review, “[t]he reasonableness of the delay must be judged ‘in the context of the … The statute, § 1675, presents a clearly discernible timetable imposed by Congress concerning the completion of the reviews.

Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. United States

104 F. Supp. 2d 106 · United States Court of International Trade · May 18, 2000

Plaintiff argues, however, that on its face 19 U.S.C. § 1309, which is not in the Act establishing the HMT, would appear to provide an applicable exemption. … The ICAO policies at issue, however, clearly specify refunds of duties or taxes previously paid.

Woodrum v. Donovan

564 F. Supp. 826 · United States Court of International Trade · May 10, 1983

Moreover, it established that plaintiffs’ employing firm was an independently owned and operated automobile dealership. … The legislative history shows clearly that Congress did not intend to expand the scope of coverage in the manner contemplated by plaintiffs.

Chrysler Corp. v. United States

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 353 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 14, 1995

Furthermore, the holding of the Federal Circuit in General Motors renders nondeterminative the factual distinctions established by plaintiff. … General Motors, 976 F.2d at 720 , directs that to qualify for duty-free treatment, the entire advancement by the coating operations is to be considered, not simply the top coats.

Performance Additives LLC v. United States

705 F. Supp. 3d 1385 · United States Court of International Trade · May 31, 2024

Corp. imports and pays duty on certain “qualifying” petroleum derivatives, and sells or exchanges them with Y Corp., and Y Corp. then acquires a good made with the use of a qualifying article, or … See 19 U.S.C. § 1504 (establishing a statutory time frame for the liquidation of consumption entries and drawback claims).

Hampco Apparel, Inc. v. United States

12 Ct. Int'l Trade 92 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 28, 1988

At trial, plaintiff presented seven witnesses, five of whom were qualified as experts in the field of design, production, manufacture, marketing and retail sale of apparel. … The testimony at trial clearly shows that the garment at issue herein was readily identifiable as swimwear. 2 Further, the merchandise itself is persuasive evidence as to its use as swimwear. Mast Industries, Inc. v.

Qingdao Maycarrier Import & Export Corp., Ltd. v. United States

949 F. Supp. 2d 1335 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 13, 2013

Contrary to Maycarrier’s insistence, this section of the Company Law does not “clearly” establish that “[[ ]]” is the proper translation. … According to Maycarrier, Commerce’s translation of the CAP provisions was unreasonable because it is not qualified to interpret Chinese law. See id.

Canadian Wheat Board v. United States

580 F. Supp. 2d 1350 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 20, 2008

In order to establish Article III standing, the Governments of Canada would have to establish an injury-in-fact such that they could bring suit on their own——without CWB’s involvement. See Hui Yu v. U.S. … Nevertheless, it is apparent that, jurisdiction having been established under § 1581, sovereign immunity has been waived. See Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. Clinton, 236 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed.

Timex V.I., Inc. v. United States

969 F. Supp. 1345 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 30, 1997

“When the construction of an administrative regulation rather than a statute is in issue, deference is even more clearly in order. … Timex thus did not qualify as a producer entitled to a PIC in 1996. The Secretaries decision to affirm the Director’s denial of Timex’ request for a PIC will therefore be sustained.

Mast Industries, Inc. v. Regan

596 F. Supp. 1567 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 4, 1984

After it is decided that the President has congressional authority for his action, “his motives, his reasoning, his finding of facts requiring the action, and his judgment, are immune from judicial scrutiny.” … But the phrase “clearly provoke definitely undesirable international consequences” appears illustrative.

Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. United States

2007 CIT 47 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 28, 2007

warranty repair cost, (17) qualifying warranty overhead cost, (18) total qualifying warranty cost. … This independent confirmation is necessary to “establish that the defects did indeed exist at the time of importation.” Id. C.

Fabricas El Carmen, SA, De CV v. United States

672 F. Supp. 1465 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 7, 1987

It is not an “application fee, deposit or similar payment paid in order to qualify for, or to receive the benefit of the subsidy.” Cf. … Depending upon the actual rates calculated and other circumstances it may be appropriate to establish one representative country-wide rate.

Group Italglass U.S.A., Inc. v. United States

17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1205 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 12, 1993

The court then concluded that “[s]uch presentation and qualified acceptance of the protest was a substantial compliance with section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and the protest is therefore timely.” Id. at 35-36. … Clearly the judicial fiat sought by plaintiff mandating that Customs accept protests as “filed” when transmitted by fax after the close of regular business hours would, if granted, be a wholly unwarranted intrusion into an