Case law

Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United States

818 F. Supp. 2d 1355 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 31, 2012

Determining that Ashley did not qualify for CDSOA benefits, ITC declined to designate Ashley an ADP with respect to this order for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010. … We conclude, however, that Ashley does not qualify for permanent equitable relief.

Eaves-Brooks Costume Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Int'l Trade 996 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 25, 1988

Headnote 1 to Schedule 8, Part 4, TSUS, provides that to qualify for duty-free entry under Part 4 (which includes Item 851.30), the imported article must be "exclusively for the use of the institution involved, and not for … But this overlooks the ongoing evolution and etymological development of the language — and the modification of the regalia provisions since 1930. 4 The opera costumes which are under discussion seem clearly to fall within

Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Insurance

700 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 26, 2010

as affected domestic producers (“ADPs”) under the CDSOA as reimbursement for incurred qualifying expenditures.2 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(e) (repealed 2006). … Section 1367 established that statutory power by codifying, defining, expanding in some ways, and qualifying in other ways, supplemental jurisdiction as it had existed prior to the 1990 enactment.

E. R. Hawthorne & Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Int'l Trade 16 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 11, 1983

It is well established that the classification of the imported merchandise is determined by the character thereof at the time of its importation. Carrington Co., United Geophysical Corp., v. … In its application of the foregoing rule, however, the defendant fails to give appropriate consideration to the qualifying phrase included therein: * * * but does not prevail over a specific provision for such part.

Canadian Reynolds Metals Co. v. United States

350 F. Supp. 2d 1302 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 8, 2004

Standard of Review Because Plaintiff is seeking to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction, it has the burden to establish the basis for jurisdiction. … Moreover, the language of the protest – objecting to unanticipated frustration of the Agreement– clearly refers to decisions which had not yet been made, and not to the November 8 Letter.

Ford Motor Co. v. United States

435 F. Supp. 2d 1324 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 21, 2006

agency may not waive the U.S. government’s sovereign immunity by consenting to be sued. Such consent may only come from an unequivocal expression of Congress. See Irwin v. … an obviously inapposite context, the Court supposes they were doing their best to document a unique transaction.16 Whatever its underlying impetus was, the notation clearly

Hosiden Corp. v. United States

810 F. Supp. 322 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 29, 1992

Title 19 of the United States Code, Section 1673 (1988) establishes distinct roles for Commerce and the Commission. … Clearly, in the action before the court the issue was not identical in both proceedings.

Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co. v. United States

355 F. Supp. 3d 1365 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 8, 2019

In 2002, Commerce established that the countrywide entity rate for China was 114.9%. … Here, Commerce clearly requested the Articles of Association applicable to the POR.

Former Employees of Chevron Products Co. v. United States Secretary of Labor

245 F. Supp. 2d 1312 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 28, 2002

Cir. 2000) (criticizing counsel’s “fail[ure] to cite, much less distinguish, clearly governing case law” as potential violation of Rule 3.3). … producing,” the statute requires that – where petitioning workers are found to be ineligible for NAFTA-TAA benefits – the Labor Department is to automatically evaluate their eligibility for benefits under the TAA statute (which clearly

Deckers Corp. v. United States

2019 CIT 18 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 4, 2019

The Teva Sport Sandals do not qualify as such as previously described. … The plaintiff argues that the ejusdem generis analysis of subheading 6404.11 in Deckers I was clearly erroneous.

Delphi Petroleum, Inc. v. United States

662 F. Supp. 2d 1348 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 15, 2009

Aectra exported finished petroleum products, and the Government did not dispute that Aectra generally qualified for drawback. Id. at 1367. … The final clause states that “[n]o extension [of the three-year filing limit] will be granted unless it is established that the Customs Service was responsible for the untimely filing.” 19 U.S.C. § 1313(r)(1).

United States v. Nitek Electronics, Inc.

844 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 13, 2012

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction, see Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. … Supp. 2d 1345, 1356 (2010), and a plaintiff must “show that it exhausted its administrative remedies, or that it qualifies for an exception to the exhaustion doctrine.” Consol. Bearings Co. v.

Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Brown

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 663 · United States Court of International Trade · May 9, 1995

Plaintiffs contend they qualify as “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action. ” The statutory provisions of the FTZA do not speak to challenges to Board disapprovals of subzone applications. … The Court recognizes that although the principles of real party in interest and standing bear resemblance, “several * * * elements of the standing doctrine are clearly unrelated to the rather simple proposition set out in

Standard Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. United States

823 F. Supp. 2d 1327 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 17, 2012

In ruling on claims that are not distinguishable from Standard’s in any material way, the Court of Appeals held that “[b]ecause it serves a substantial government interest, the Byrd Amendment is . . . clearly not violative … We conclude, however, that Standard does not qualify for permanent equitable relief.

VWP of America, Inc. v. United States

30 Ct. Int'l Trade 1580 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 26, 2006

As a waiver of sovereign immunity, the statute provides a “hard and fast” deadline that, if not met, leaves the Court Court No. 96-05-01309 Page 5 … not the 101 entries plaintiff alleges were intended to be covered”), aff’d, 752 F.2d at 627 (“[m]oreover, appellant’s attempt to make all categories of merchandise (nine in this action) the subject of a single protest clearly

Sigma Corp. v. United States

20 Ct. Int'l Trade 852 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 15, 1996

Thus, the Government is required to show that it “was clearly reasonable in asserting its position, including its position at the agency level, in view of the law and the facts. … Simply, Liaoning was never afforded the opportunity to establish its independence.

International Trading Co. v. United States

306 F. Supp. 2d 1265 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 2, 2004

The Federal Circuit has stated clearly that the Commerce and Customs should not be allowed to circumvent the expediency provided for in the § 1504(d) by *1278 postponing the issuance of its instructions indefinitely. … Furthermore, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 established strict timetables for assessment and reviews of antidumping duties. S.Rep. No. 96-249, at 15-18 (1979). 14 .

JSC Acron v. United States

893 F. Supp. 2d 1337 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 25, 2013

In response to Nevinka’s request for separate rate status, Commerce concluded that Nevinka qualified for such status, id. at 1143, having demonstrated “the absence of de jure and de facto government control over export … Where, as here, a claim depends upon a waiver of sovereign immunity, a court will strictly construe the jurisdictional statute. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941).

Ethan Allen Global, Inc. v. United States

816 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 20, 2012

Phelps does not establish a principle of First Amendment law requiring us to invalidate the CDSOA petition support requirement as applied to Ethan Allen. Citizens United v. … But the Court of Appeals held, broadly, that the CDSOA “is valid under the First Amendment” and “is also clearly not violative of equal protection under the rational basis standard.” Id. at 1360.

RHP Bearing Ltd. v. United Stateserratum:

1999 CIT 134 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 16, 1999

This clearly would undermine the predictability of the statute. … Court No. 97-02-00217 Page 30 profit, the Court would clearly violate both of these rules. See id.