Case law

Heraeus-Amersil, Inc. v. United States

10 Ct. Int'l Trade 197 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 26, 1986

Plaintiff fails, however, to cite and deal with the compelling body of relevant case law, which clearly shows not only that an article is not classifiable as a tube merely because it is called a tube, see United States v. … In the case at bar, the evidence at trial establishes that plaintiff s Rotosil articles are used for purposes not ordinarily associated with tubes. As Mr.

Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. United States

569 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 3, 2008

Constitutional Standing Because federal judicial jurisdiction arises from the Constitution, in order to *1323 bring its case here, Totes must demonstrate that its claim qualifies as a “case” or “controversy” for purposes … The constitutional equal protection guarantee at issue in this case clearly protects against discrimination on the basis of sex. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. at 197 , 97 S.Ct. 451 .

Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States

162 F. Supp. 2d 656 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 15, 2001

Under that regulation, Commerce presumptively establishes the date of sale as the invoice date unless a different date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale were established. … The statute clearly seems to establish only one exception to its general rule.

Aluminerie Becancour, Inc. v. United States

350 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · 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.

Grobest & I-Mei Indus. (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. v. United States

853 F. Supp. 2d 1352 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 31, 2012

The Court of Appeals has stated that “an agency abuses its discretion where its ‘decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous … Cir. 2011) (noting that a clear error of judgment occurs when an action is “arbitrary, fanciful or clearly unreasonable”).

Mount Washington Tanker Co. v. United States

505 F. Supp. 209 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 5, 1980

The repairs, which consisted of overhauling the main generator, were not occasioned by stress of weather or other casualty at sea, and, therefore, would not qualify for the remission of duties under 19 U.S.C. § 1466 (b). … In support of its contention plaintiff cites the long established principle of international law that the sea is “the common property of all nations.”

American Motorists Insurance v. United States

737 F. Supp. 648 · United States Court of International Trade · May 10, 1990

Subsection (c)(2) of section 1514 establishes the 90-day time period, noted above, within which a protest provided for by that section must be filed. … To qualify under that standard, a demand for payment must “provide a surety sufficient means of ascertaining the bond on which demand for payment is being made”. Id. at 4-5, 625 F.Supp. at 986 .

Marubeni America Corp. v. United States

915 F. Supp. 413 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 23, 1996

Rabas when noting that he was “a highly qualified engineering specialist in heating, refrigeration and airconditioning equipment and an expert in heat transfer.” Op. at 1106. … In sum, the foregoing authorities clearly preclude any concept of a deferential standard of statutory construction in classification cases in favor of the importer’s reasonable interpretation. y.

Cablesa S.A. de C v. v. United States

31 Ct. Int'l Trade 252 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 1, 2007

acid content qualified its product for exclusion from the order. … The purchase orders that Cablesa points to do not establish such actual use.

Xiping Opeck Food Co. v. United States

34 F. Supp. 3d 1331 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 11, 2014

The statute provides no further explanation as to the type of entity that qualifies as an exporter. … In any event, Commerce must clearly explain how the transactions violated the statute and how the remedy it seeks to use is grounded in the law and the facts.

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States

294 F. Supp. 2d 1359 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 28, 2003

The Court recognizes that the term “internal transfers” does not clearly include transfers to joint ventures. … No. 00-00151 Page 24 time limits established for the completion of the investigation. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d).

Furniture Brands International, Inc. v. United States

807 F. Supp. 2d 1301 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 20, 2011

Court No. 07-00026 Page 12 allocate and distribute these duties to ADPs annually as reimbursement for qualifying expenditures. … 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

Allegheny Bradford Corp. v. United States

350 F. Supp. 2d 1332 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 23, 2004

First, the Customs protest procedure provided in § 1514 was clearly inappropriate to address a violation of a court order. … Consequently, Top Line failed to provide sufficient evidence from which to determine whether any of its attorneys justified a higher fee than the statutory rate for reasons such as a limited number of “qualified attorneys

Luigi Bormioli Corp., Inc. v. United States

118 F. Supp. 2d 1345 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 19, 2000

TD 85-111 establishes three criteria that must be met in order for a charge to qualify as an interest payment at a particular rate: 1) the interest charge is identified separately; 2) there is a financing agreement in … The 1987 letter agreement clearly contemplated an interest rate that would change with time. This did not change with the two additional letter modifications.

Allegheny Bradford Corp. v. United States

342 F. Supp. 2d 1162 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 29, 2004

Thus, the Federal Circuit has not immunized agency actions from the force of pre- existing court orders through the wholesale rejection of the voidance doctrine. … “[W]here Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs.” Id. (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 145 (1992).

Avesta AB v. United States

689 F. Supp. 1173 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 7, 1988

It is also well established that judicial review of an agency’s regulations is limited. … With regard to the first conclusion, plaintiffs contend that even if the request for review did not conclusively establish that current import levels result from the acquisition, “plaintiffs clearly presented enough evidence

RHP Bearings Ltd. v. United States

120 F. Supp. 2d 1116 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 2, 2000

On its face, 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e) clearly provides Commerce with a great deal of discretion in adjusting CEP for the cost of further manufacture and assembly. … Rather, such expenses were clearly direct selling expenses.

Env't One Corp. v. United States

627 F. Supp. 3d 1349 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 11, 2023

Defendants argue that “the summons must establish the court’s jurisdiction,” Defs.’ Mot. … Pursuant to USCIT Rule 3(e), “the court may allow a summons to be amended at any time . . . unless it clearly appears that material prejudice would result to the substantial rights of the party against whom the amendment

Shades, Inc. v. United States

4 Ct. Int'l Trade 113 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 14, 1982

While the witness admitted he was not an expert in the lumber industry, he was well qualified as an engineer. … The statutory requirement of parallelism imposed by headnote 2(a) applies only to lumber “in its original sawed condition * * *” [emphasis supplied], and the record clearly establishes that “in their original sawed condition

Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States

559 F. Supp. 2d 1347 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 11, 2008

These statements suggest that DOD qualifies as a chemical product or preparation with a non-specific chemical composition. … This assertion is clearly validated by the creation of Heading 3825, which refers to "residual products" that may also be construed as a type of "by-product."