Case law

VWP of America, Inc. v. United States

21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1109 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 25, 1997

The Court finds that the valuation statute clearly focuses on basing imported merchandise on the “price paid or payable.” … Therefore, the Court finds that the sale between VWPA and its U.S. customers is a sale between a Canadian company and U.S. customers which qualifies the sale for transaction value appraisal.

Pillsbury Co. v. United States

368 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 19, 2005

Again, Customs’ analysis is does not follow established jurisprudence. … Cir. 2003) (neither a treaty nor executive agreement will be deemed abrogated unless Congress clearly expresses its intent).

Barnhart v. United States Treasury Department

588 F. Supp. 1432 · United States Court of International Trade · May 31, 1984

The testimony at the hearing established plaintiff enjoyed an excellent reputation as a customs broker among his peers and business associates in the importing community. … The communication therein was clearly ex parte, and the remedy, re-in-statement with back pay, reflected the extraordinary nature of the violation. The case at bar involves a different type of error.

Meyer Corp., U.S. v. United States

255 F. Supp. 3d 1348 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 23, 2017

It is also noteworthy that the distinction between “article” and “set” in U.S. customs law has for long predated the GSP, which was established by the 1974 Trade Act, and the HTSUS, which was established by the 1988 Omnibus … The manufacturer’s price constitutes a viable transaction value Court No. 13-00154 Page 21 when the goods are clearly destined for

Chas. Kurz & Co., Inc. v. United States

698 F. Supp. 268 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 13, 1988

Kurz’ petition clearly and simply objected to the fact that MSC was not billed directly for the duty. … Hence, the Kurz petition and circumstances are clearly distinguishable from the cases cited.

Atteberry v. United States

27 Ct. Int'l Trade 1070 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 28, 2003

On its face, 28 U.S.C. § 2637 constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. … no grand assault on the citadel of sovereign immunity.

Pentax Corp. v. Robison

20 Ct. Int'l Trade 486 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 15, 1996

Clearly, as a consequence of the failure to correctly mark the country of origin on the imported merchandise, additional duties at ten percent of the value of such merchandise are owed. … Plaintiffs do not assert that they can establish, at this time, that unusual fact patterns would have existed as to any particular entry which would have kept the goods in Customs, or even their own, control.

Smith-Corona Group, Consumer Products Division, SCM Corp. v. United States

507 F. Supp. 1015 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 30, 1980

While the principle respecting the strict construction of statutes waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States is well settled, 6 the plain indication of Congressional intent concerning the interplay of section 736 … That a section 751 determination, such as made here, could be made during the ninety day period following the publication of the antidumping duty order, as may be noted above, is clearly reflected in legislative history.

Shandong Huarong General Corp. v. United States

159 F. Supp. 2d 714 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 23, 2001

Commerce’s Selection of Indian HTS Category 7214.10.09 as a Surrogate Value for Steel Bar The antidumping law clearly establishes the standard by which Commerce is to determine the normal value of merchandise … Accordingly, although the standard of review applicable to this case precludes the Court from rendering judgment on whether the surrogate value chosen by Commerce was the absolute best available, precedent clearly establishes

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. United States

21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1083 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 19, 1997

Supreme Court to establish whether collateral estoppel is available between the parties. … The record clearly demonstrates a complete absence of bad purpose or evil motive on the part of Gulfstream.

Mid Continent Nail Corporation v. United States

712 F. Supp. 2d 1370 · United States Court of International Trade · May 4, 2010

The plaintiffs argue that these examples clearly illustrate “targeted dumping” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(B)(i), but would not be classified as such under Commerce’s test. (Id. at 32.) … Furthermore, plaintiff has done nothing to attempt to establish that on this record the five percent requirement is unreasonably high.

International Custom Products, Inc. v. United States

77 F. Supp. 3d 1319 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 24, 2015

The record establishes that these warnings were not heeded. … The process is not regular enough to establish that such minor pieces of information should reasonably be considered material.

Zuniga v. United States

16 Ct. Int'l Trade 459 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 12, 1992

At trial, plaintiffs contended that the merchandise was substantially transformed into at least one intermediate product during the operations, and therefore qualified for GSP duty-free treatment. … Accordingly, the court determines that casting slip remained clearly recognizable as a simple blend of its dry ingredients, and was not a substantially transformed “new and different” article.

LMI—La Metalli Industriale, S.P.A. v. United States

712 F. Supp. 959 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 11, 1989

Plaintiffs do not need to attribute each expense claimed to a particular sale in order to qualify for a circumstance of sale adjustment. Rhone Poulenc, S.A. v. … Commerce used this methodology to conform to an “established policy.” Id.

Negev Phosphates, Ltd. v. United States Department of Commerce

699 F. Supp. 938 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 8, 1988

As such, indemnity payments resulting from the program do not qualify as directly-related expenses under [ 19 C.F.R. § 353.15 ].” … Although the Commission’s power to cumulate import statistics is now well-established, see Fundicao Tupy S.A. v.

Best Key Textiles Co. v. United States

2014 CIT 22 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 25, 2014

The term was clearly not present in the relevant tariff provision. … Customs’ analysis of the hypothetical, of the claim that any amount of metal added to impart some desirable quality beyond visibility qualifies the product as a “metalized” yarn of heading 5605, clearly indicates that if

United Synthetics, Inc. v. United States

844 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 20, 2012

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 … the burden is on one complaining of a due process violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way.” 428 U.S. at 15.

Esso Standard Oil Co. (PR) v. United States

31 Ct. Int'l Trade 1848 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 20, 2007

In fact, a mistake clearly occurred. … The website of United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) explains that “The Automatic Broker Interface is an integral part of ACS [the Automated Commercial System] that permits qualified participants to file import

Second Nature Designs Ltd. v. United States

660 F. Supp. 3d 1352 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 21, 2023

In both cases, the key issue is whether the items qualify as wickerwork. … That case is inapposite here, where Second Nature has not established such a significant difference in size.

Occidental Oil & Gas Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Int'l Trade 244 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 29, 1989

After plaintiff failed to provide evidence of United States origin for the merchandise covered by invoices 3 and 4, the entry was liquidated on May 27, 1983, with only the merchandise covered by invoices 1 and 2 qualifying … Clearly, plaintiffs proper course of action would have been to chai- *249 lenge the classification of the merchandise through a section 514 protest.