Case law

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

NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United States

104 F. Supp. 2d 110 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 5, 2000

Indeed, § 1677a(c)’s language clearly provides that subsection (c) adjustments must be made to the starting price used to “establish” EP. … Also, the language of § 1677a(c) as well as § 1677a(d) clearly provides that subsection (c) and (d) adjustments must be made to the starting price used to “establish” CEP.

Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. v. United States

2019 CIT 151 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 2, 2019

At issue is whether an exporter in a non-market economy (“NME”) 1 has adequately established the independence from governmental control necessary to qualify for a separate antidumping duty rate apart from the countrywide … Unlike other minutes on the record which clearly indicate that a Board vote was held, this piece of evidence did not include any indication that a formal vote was held. Oral Argument.

Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United States

276 F. Supp. 2d 1322 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 14, 2003

As they stand, the protests clearly notified Customs of the reason for the protests, latent defects in the automobiles. … SCUSA’s protests clearly contest the Court No. 00-00041 Page 14 appraised values of the entries because many of the vehicles allegedly contained latent defects, and clearly request an

Carnation Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. United States Department of Commerce

719 F. Supp. 1084 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 21, 1989

. § 1516a specify “the terms and conditions upon which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity in consenting to be sued in the Court of International Trade.” Georgetown Steel Corp. v. … Plaintiffs clearly did not seek exclusion ... at the time of [Commerce’s] original investigation.

Geneva Steel v. United States

914 F. Supp. 563 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 25, 1996

Commerce determined that firms qualifying for benefits under the 1970 Law would also qualify for benefits under the 1959 Law, albeit at a somewhat lower benefit level. Id. at 37,289. … Thomson, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 281, 299 , 14 L.Ed. 696 (1853) ("[W]herever the rights or the situation of parties are clearly defined and established by law, equity has no power to change or unsettle those rights or that situa-tion

Nelson v. U.S. Secretary of Labor

20 Ct. Int'l Trade 896 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 26, 1996

Under these circumstances, when a statute is ambiguous, so long as the agency’s interpretation of the statute it is charged to administer is reasonable, and does not contravene clearly discernable legislative intent, the … To require Labor to consider whether any single individual may be qualified would thwart the very requirement that the petition be filed by a group.

Corus Staal BV v. United States Department of Commerce

259 F. Supp. 2d 1253 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 7, 2003

Commerce clearly stumbled upon something that caused it to reconsider and reverse its position. … Having found that the statute does not clearly require zeroing, the court now turns to whether the WTO Antidumping Agreement clearly prohibits zeroing.

Zojirushi America Corp. v. United States

180 F. Supp. 3d 1354 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 4, 2016

Clearly, the action Customs took on Protest No. 2704-14-101380 was not an allowance. … Customs issued a decision disposing of that protest, but that decision does not qualify as an allowance or a denial of the protest for purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1515.

Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States

18 Ct. Int'l Trade 882 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 21, 1994

The methodology proposed by [the Unions) clearly would skew the discount amount * * * to the extent that dealers purchased other products. … It stated, Samsung cannot identify which particular sets qualified for the rebate * * *.

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

279 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 28, 2003

reasons detailed in Chevron I, the memo clearly “is not a contemporaneous record memorializing the investigator’s contacts, and is of dubious reliability.” 26 CIT at ____ n.25, 245 F. Supp. 2d at 1334 n.25. … Further, the Labor Department determined that the Roosevelt Workers do not meet the requisite criteria to qualify for benefits as secondarily-affected workers.

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

256 F. Supp. 3d 1294 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 30, 2017

. § 351.225(k)(2) (2015) (the “(k)(2) factors”)1 which establish that Maquilacero’s mechanical tubing meets the 1 Under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k), “in considering whether a particular product is included … Cir. 2017) (“The relevant scope terms are ‘unambiguous’ if they have a ‘single clearly defined or stated meaning.’”

Risen Energy Co. v. United States

2023 CIT 148 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 11, 2023

Export Buyer’s Credit Program The Government of China’s (“GOC”) Export Buyer’s Credit Program (“EBCP”) promotes exports by providing credit at preferential interest rates to qualifying foreign purchasers of GOC … amortization that JA Solar argues is unfavorable is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous.

Fabrique De Fer De Charleroi S.A. v. United States

155 F. Supp. 2d 801 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 3, 2001

Commerce has the practice of using qualified data as a proxy for the data missing from the record. … [An] administrative implementation of a particular statutory provision [is valid and] qualifies for Chevron [U.S.A. Inc. v.

United States v. Dantzler Lumber & Export Co.

810 F. Supp. 1277 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 15, 1992

A penalty assessed in a civil proceeding qualifies as “punishment” when “a defendant who has already been punished in a criminal prosecution [is] subjected to an additional civil sanction to the extent that the second sanction … Indeed, the defendants have been essentially left to claim failure to disclose all of the material facts allegedly establishing the violations charged.

Hartog Foods International Inc. v. United States

15 Ct. Int'l Trade 475 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 18, 1991

The merchandise was invoiced as “32 Brix” 1 “apricot [or peach or pear] concentrate” or “apricot [or peach or pear] puree concentrate,” with or without other qualifying language. … , definite, and general, such meaning will be adopted unless a contrary intention of Congress is clearly manifested.

Bonanza Trucking Corp. v. United States

664 F. Supp. 1453 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 18, 1987

A judgment for costs when taxed against the United States shall, in an amount established by statute, court rule, or order, be limited to reimbursing in whole or in part the prevailing party for the costs incurred by such … Each hinges on alleged unavailability of qualified counsel. Plaintiff's counsel claim that they are “experienced litigants” in the areas of customs and international trade law. Plaintiffs Memorandum, p. 32.

International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. United States

227 F. Supp. 3d 1353 · United States Court of International Trade · May 30, 2017

Therefore, because the last of the thirty-three entries was made on January 7, 2008, and because Customs clearly needed time to complete its work, it was not an abuse of discretion for Customs, even at the early date of … Nor could it be said that the failure to respond to a verification request established a pattern from which Customs could be charged with knowledge that it would not receive responses to its inquiries.

Sigma Corp. v. United States

841 F. Supp. 1255 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 8, 1993

The request clearly did not list MACHIMPEX Liaoning. It merely listed MACHIMPEX and not any of its branches. … Plaintiff D & L claims that if Guangdong Minmetals qualified for a separate rate during the subsequent 1989-90 review period, then it also should have qualified for separate rates during the two previous years.

Superscope, Inc. v. United States

13 Ct. Int'l Trade 997 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 11, 1989

Defendant argues that "[a]s an entity, the imported merchandise is clearly not a product of the United States.” … Accordingly, plaintiffs alternative argument, that "the glass panels qualify for entry under item 807.00, TSUS, as U.S. products assembled abroad[,]” need not be considered.