Case law

China Mfrs. Alliance, LLC v. United States

357 F. Supp. 3d 1364 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 16, 2019

An agency interpretation that disregards the clearly expressed intent of Congress is not a reasonable one. … A rate equal to the 0.14% margin Commerce calculated in the Final Results for Double Coin clearly qualifies under that criterion, as it used the actual data for Double Coin, which fully cooperated in the review, but the

Sumitomo Corp. of America v. United States

18 Ct. Int'l Trade 501 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 2, 1994

The moving party bears the burden of establishing that the material facts are not in dispute and entitle it to judgment as a matter of law * * *. … After the moving party has clearly established its case, the duty to go forward shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidence that places material facts in dispute. Balboa Ins. Co. v.

Truong v. United States Sec'y of Agriculture

461 F. Supp. 2d 1349 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 12, 2006

From the date of this notice, the Trade Act of 2002 required eligible shrimpers to file an application by February 28, 2005 to qualify for benefits. See id. See generally 19 U.S.C. … As such, even though the language in Autoalliance Int’l appears clearly irreconcilable with Irwin v.

United States v. Hitachi America, Ltd.

21 Ct. Int'l Trade 373 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 15, 1997

The government proffered no reason for this clearly suspicious behavior. Mr. … Taga’s belief that Hitachi America’s past practice was to pay EPA at the end, he was clearly on notice that there might be a problem with doing so.

Former Employees of Chevron USA, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor

32 F. Supp. 2d 471 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 31, 1998

“The Court must uphold the Secretary’s interpretation of the Trade Act, provided it is sufficiently reasonable and does not contravene clearly discernible legislative intent.” Bunker Limited Partnership v. … And Congress relaxed the “contributed importantly” standard in 1974 so that more workers could qualify for benefits. See S.Rep. No. 93-1298, at 133 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. 7275.

United States v. Islip

18 F. Supp. 2d 1047 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 26, 1998

Articles 10(b) and 10(c) have no special enumerated procedures for establishing proof of service. … It establishes the “time, place, and contents” of each of Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations.

Central Soya Co., Inc. v. United States

761 F. Supp. 133 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 20, 1991

The plaintiff submits that section 1313(j)(2) clearly does not require that the claimant have possession of the substituted merchandise at the time of exportation, as required by the Customs Service. … The legislative history reveals several views that were suggested and considered as to the requirements that would qualify a party for substitution same condition drawback.

Legacy Classic Furniture, Inc. v. United States

867 F. Supp. 2d 1321 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 19, 2012

The Court No. 10-00352 Page 8 record clearly indicates that seating is one of the main functions of the Heritage Court Bench. … Some exclusions are qualified and some are not.

Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. United States

813 F. Supp. 840 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 3, 1993

Moreover, the court finds that the goods at bar clearly are for an electro-medical apparatus. … It is, therefore, necessary to establish a healing and curative purpose of a particular medical procedure in order to qualify it as therapeutic.

Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States

547 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 19, 2008

In assessing the relative merits of the parties’ arguments, the Court’s role here is a clearly delimited one and “[i]t is not within the Court's domain either to weigh the adequate quality or quantity of the evidence for … to sell to Alcoa in Brazil, which would enable them to qualify for sales to Alcoa in the U.S. on an accelerated basis”); and established EU relationships (“[Brazilian producers] had only [confidential number] contracts that

Cementos Anahuac Del Golfo, S.A. v. United States

687 F. Supp. 1558 · United States Court of International Trade · May 12, 1988

domestic industry, or retard materially the establishment of a domestic industry. ****** 14. … The defendants contend that, since the executive branch of the government negotiated the Understanding, its regulations are “clearly the best evidence” 13 of what that meaning is, “notwithstanding how that term has been used

Husteel Co. v. United States

77 F. Supp. 3d 1286 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 23, 2015

Alloy Piping, therefore, does not establish a principle under which Husteel qualifies for a remedy on its ministerial error claim. Husteel’s reliance on Borlem is also misplaced. … or review, Congress established an exception to the general principle of finality.

Sandvik AB v. United States

721 F. Supp. 1322 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 14, 1989

Any supposition by plaintiffs that the ITA used the class or kind designation instead of the like product is clearly mistaken. … Plaintiffs also failed to establish that the discount was a function of the quantities sold.

United States v. Active Frontier Int'l, Inc.

2018 CIT 58 · United States Court of International Trade · May 24, 2018

the maximum amount is appropriate because Active Frontier, having failed to respond to CBP’s pre-penalty notice and penalty claim, did not put forth any information from which it could be concluded that Active Frontier qualifies … As noted in an affidavit submitted by plaintiff, the true bills of lading for each of the six entries “clearly stated” that the origin of the merchandise was China.

Estate of Finkel v. Donovan

614 F. Supp. 1245 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 31, 1985

Furthermore, plaintiff contends that the Secretary’s own findings establish that increased imports “contributed importantly” to the separations at Trifine. … Hence, Tyler is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

Van Trinh v. United States Secretary of Agriculture

395 F. Supp. 2d 1259 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 29, 2005

The question clearly designates that section as being for “County Office Use Only,” and shows the “yes” box checked with a date of December 11, 2003, indicating that someone in the Matagorda County FSA Office looked over … Additionally, § 1580.303 of Agriculture’s regulations specify that “[a]pplicants shall satisfy by September 30 all certifications of § 1580.301(e) to qualify for adjustment assistance payments.” 7 C.F.R. § 1580.303(a).

Clipper Belt Lacer Co., Inc. v. United States

738 F. Supp. 528 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 13, 1990

“It is a well-established rule that a ‘part’ of an article is something necessary to the completion of that article. … The decided cases do not clearly establish any set rule or principle for determination of what constitutes parts of automobiles.

Save Domestic Oil, Inc. v. United States

116 F. Supp. 2d 1324 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 19, 2000

And the court must affirm that those averments, on their face, are not clearly frivolous. 9 See 64 Fed.Reg. at 44,481. … In tying such status to a domestic like product, clearly Congress intended to provide in a case such as this for associations like IPAA. See, e.g., S.Rep. No. 96- 249, p. 90 (1979).

Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States

17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1040 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 21, 1993

Therefore, the discretion of the regulating authorities is clearly permitted and codified within this provision. See Koyo Seiko Co., 17 CIT 2 , 810 F. Supp. 1287 . … The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated on this issue that in order for a discount or rebate to qualify as a direct cost to be subtracted from FMY the discount or rebate must have been actually paid on all

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States

414 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 17, 2006

Plaintiffs argue that Commerce failed to follow a “clearly enunciated” policy and “established statutory interpretation” that were designed to achieve the purpose of the drawback adjustment. (Id.) … Clearly, Congress envisioned that the duties imposed under § 201 would be considered “import duties” for purposes of the legislation.8 Commerce undertook a different analysis in interpreting the phrase “United States