Case law

Timken Co. v. United States

15 Ct. Int'l Trade 87 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 7, 1991

Thus, while the jurisdictional basis for Timken’s claims is clearly provided by 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2), intervenor’s crossclaims must also establish a proper jurisdictional basis. … However, here intervenor’s crossclaims clearly come too late.

United States v. Federal Insurance

605 F. Supp. 298 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 14, 1985

The traditional elements of estoppel are clearly present in the instant action. … The sovereign’s duly lo protect the public interest is subsumed within the doctrine of sovercign immunity.

Humane Society of the United States v. Clinton

44 F. Supp. 2d 260 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 5, 1999

Sovereign Immunity Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs cannot maintain their cause of action against the President because a waiver of sovereign immunity does not exist. … The Court in Humane II clearly established the legal standard for what constitutes reason to believe under 16 U.S.C. § 1826a(b)(1)(B).

United States Shoe Corp. v. United States

907 F. Supp. 408 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 25, 1995

Although the federal government enjoys broad immunity, this immunity does not extend to unconstitutional behavior, and a statute of limitations that operates in violation of the Due Process Clause constitutes an invalid exercise … Ill, § 1 of the Constitution or the sovereign immunity of the federal government....

Skaraborg Invest USA, Inc. v. United States

9 F. Supp. 2d 706 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 27, 1998

Rather, Skara-borg argues that a trial is necessary to establish whether the reimported subject merchandise qualifies for duty-free treatment under HTSUS 9801.00.20 or 9801.00.25. … The molding machines at issue clearly fall within this description.

Florsheim Shoe Co., Div. of Interco, Inc. v. United States

570 F. Supp. 734 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 7, 1983

Clearly, Florsheim has standing to claim entitlement to duty-free treatment of its importations under the GSP and challenge the classification and assessment of duties by Customs. … Thus, it is clear that section 504(d) is designed merely to qualify the application of the competitive need formula prescribed by section 504(c)(1)(B).

Florida Sugar Marketing and Terminal Ass'n v. United States

40 F. Supp. 2d 479 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 23, 1999

In this action plaintiff seeks to have declared unconstitutional the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) established by 26 U.S.C. §§ 4461, 4462 (1994), as applied to interstate shipments. … The Dooley court, however, clearly held that the tax at issue was a valid tax on imports into Puerto Rico. Dooley, 183 U.S. at 155.

DRI Industries, Inc. v. United States

657 F. Supp. 528 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 10, 1987

Thus “[a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. … For present purposes, this Court must establish the common characteristics found in “luggage” as enumerated in 2(a)(ii) and determine if the tool chests retain these qualities and confirm their classification under item 706

Philipp Bros., Inc. v. United States

640 F. Supp. 261 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 27, 1986

A third case cited at oral argument by defendant is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In Nixon v. … Thus, effective relief from a court's denial of absolute immunity can be afforded only if an immediate appeal is allowed.

Washington International Insurance v. United States

678 F. Supp. 902 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 12, 1988

Since such an action clearly did not exist at common law, the Court concluded that the Seventh Amendment did not apply. … We note in passing that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330 , 1602-11, reflects the recent intent of Congress "to incorporate into United States law the ‘restrictive’ theory of sovereign immunity in accordance

Innotech Aviation Ltd. v. United States

21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1392 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 18, 1997

Discussion This cáse presents the Court with one issue: whether the ATCA certification that Innotech submitted to Customs is legally sufficient to qualify for ATCA duty-free treatment. … The affidavit of Innotech’s customs broker, Steven E Weiss, and Innotech’s anwers to Customs’ interrogatories, support this statement and clearly establish that Customs did have Innotech’s certification at the time of entry

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States

701 F. Supp. 3d 1398 · United States Court of International Trade · May 2, 2024

Instead, the court explained, Commerce had “relied on the existence of the criteria per se to establish specificity” pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(D)(i) instead of making the findings necessary to establish “an explicit … Commerce contrasted the “internationally-oriented manufacturing subsectors” that qualified for the full allocation with the “broader spectrum of manufacturing groups” that qualified for the standard allocation.

Chrysler Corp. v. United States

87 F. Supp. 2d 1339 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 7, 2000

Ford Motor Co., 157 F.3d at 860; see also id. at 857 ("[F]or an error to be correctable, it must simultaneously qualify as at least one of the three enumerated types and not qualify as an 'error in the construction of … Although, in Executone, the CAFC did not explicitly discuss the issue of timing, its silence on the issue -- in the face of an importer's clearly established knowledge of its factual mistake prior to liquidation -- demonstrates

Dus & Derrick, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Agriculture

469 F. Supp. 2d 1326 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 8, 2007

In other words, farmers and qualified fishermen are permitted to seek TAA benefits much like other claimants. … The statutory phrase “is less than” clearly indicates that a comparison is to be made between two years.

United States Steel Corp. v. United States

578 F. Supp. 409 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 11, 1983

See generally, Note, The Military and State Secrets Privilege: Protection for the National Security or Immunity for the Executive? 91 Yale L.J. 570 (1982). … To the extent, however, that the opinion displays a less rigorous standard for establishing the existence of a state secret and accepts the source rather than the content as a determinant, this opinion must respectfully disagree

Former Employees of Southern Triangle Oil Co. v. United States Secretary of Labor

731 F. Supp. 517 · United States Court of International Trade · May 8, 1990

The amendment, then, clearly extends to workers like Mr. Pierson who lose their jobs drilling for oil as a result of increases in oil imports. … Therefore, the certification of the company employees qualifies under the second requirement.

Ceramica Regiomontanam, S.A. v. United States

636 F. Supp. 961 · United States Court of International Trade · May 29, 1986

These limitations include strict time constraints, budgetary restrictions, and the availability of qualified personnel. … In this case the establishment of a country-wide rate is clearly consistent with prior administrative practice, and well within the permissible scope of the agency’s discretion.

American Ass'n of Exporters & Importers-Textile & Apparel Group v. United States

583 F. Supp. 591 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 14, 1984

The orderly development of trade contemplated by the MFA clearly could be impeded by a sudden infusion of textile imports from China. … As the Court of Appeals stated: The President’s action being authorized by the statute on which he relied, his motives, his reasoning, his findings of facts requiring the action, and his judgment, are immune from judicial

Meridian Products, LLC v. United States

77 F. Supp. 3d 1307 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 26, 2015

Interpretation of the “Finished Goods Kit” Exclusion to the Orders When determining the scope of an antidumping and/or countervailing duty order, Commerce applies a three-step approach established … However, the plain language of the “finished goods kit” exclusion clearly addresses what is required for a good to qualify: the listing of “window frames, door frames and picture frames” as items of subject merchandise included

Arlanxeo U.S. LLC v. U.S. & U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n

337 F. Supp. 3d 1350 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 26, 2018

The party invoking jurisdiction must “allege sufficient facts to establish the court’s jurisdiction,” id. (citing McNutt v. Gen. … The Supreme Court of the United States has established a “readily administrable bright line” when analyzing whether a time limit is jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional: If the Legislature clearly states that a threshold