Case law

Brother Industries, Ltd. v. United States

540 F. Supp. 1341 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 30, 1982

Here, the challenged rebates for PETs are clearly identifiable, easily quantifiable, and there is substantial evidence of their existence and amount. … Clearly, this F. W. Meyers teaching does not preclude the administering authority from allocating or apportioning actual costs among the various items to which they are attributable.

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.

United States v. Golden Ship Trading

22 Ct. Int'l Trade 950 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 25, 1998

Paragraph seven of the complaint clearly alleges that both Defendants, “Golden Ship [the importer of record] and Joanne Wu entered * * * three shipments of wearing apparel * * * by means of entry documents filed with the … That case does not immunize Wu’s alleged negligent violation from the plain language of § 1592(a) simply because she is a corporate officer.

Netchem, Inc. v. United States

961 F. Supp. 2d 1336 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 14, 2014

If the court finds these uncontested facts do not establish jurisdiction over a given claim, the court must dismiss that claim. … The court finally observes, as a legal matter, that statutory provisions granting jurisdiction over denied protests “operate[] as a waiver of [the government’s] sovereign immunity.” AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc. v.

Carpenter Technology Corp. v. United States

34 Ct. Int'l Trade 1482 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 23, 2010

Plaintiffs maintain on the sixth prong that AMS “clearly marketed the subject merchandise on behalf of Venus” because of AMS’s status as [[ a large seller of Venus products ]]. Pls. … Moreover, the Department correctly concluded that Venus and AMS did not establish a principal/agent relationship when Venus notified AMS’s customers by letter that it soon would begin selling its products through its new

Clearon Corp. v. United States

359 F. Supp. 3d 1344 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 25, 2019

Applying this method, Commerce determined that the Export Seller’s Credit Program qualified as a “similar program” within a segment of the same proceeding. … For Clearon, “Commerce precedent establishes that the 0.87 percent rate applied here is not a deterrent.

PPG Industries, Inc. v. United States

4 Ct. Int'l Trade 143 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 5, 1982

In item 864.30, TSUS, under which plaintiff now seeks classification of the subject merchandise free of duty, the term “experimental articles” is qualified by Subpart C, Part 5, Schedule 8 under which it is included. … Kempf of plaintiff company to Customs under date of January 15, 1971, all relating specifically to entry 109551, clearly appear from the record to have occurred prior to liquidation of the entry on October 25, 1974.

NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United States

155 F. Supp. 2d 715 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 22, 2001

§ 1677b(a)(1)(B) and the SAA, both of which clearly instruct Commerce to make such an exclusion. See INA’s Br. at 29. … Torrington maintains that the CAFC has clearly Consol.

Ninestar Corp. v. United States

687 F. Supp. 3d 1308 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 27, 2024

means irreparable harm can be established.” … Why that chart establishes irreparable harm remains unexplained.

Aluminerie Becancourt Inc. v. United Stateser

28 Ct. Int'l Trade 1079 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 14, 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, even if the escrow agreement did not vitiate Customs’ original rejection of any conditions on the payment of MPF, the language of the protest – objecting to unanticipated frustration of the escrow agreement – clearly

Canadian Reynolds Metals Co. v. United Stateser

28 Ct. Int'l Trade 1072 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 14, 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, even if the escrow agreement did not vitiate Customs’ original rejection of any conditions on the payment of MPF, the language of the protest – objecting to unanticipated frustration of the escrow agreement – clearly

Chrysler Motors Corp. v. United States

755 F. Supp. 388 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 11, 1990

Furthermore, as Senior Judge Maletz of this Court has pointed out: Agency practice, once established, is not frozen in perpetuity. … According to plaintiff, Customs was without authority to revoke its previous practice unless clearly wrong. Memorandum of Plaintiff at 41.

Boltex Manufacturing Co. v. United States

140 F. Supp. 2d 1339 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 8, 2000

. § 1581(h) is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and provides for judicial review of a ruling prior to the importation of the goods involved, upon a showing of irreparable harm. … Clearly, the object of the limitation remains in existence following the limitation.

Ninestar Corp. v. United States

716 F. Supp. 3d 1376 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 10, 2024

Even if not privileged, that information is clearly LES for the reasons established by Defendants in the Brzozowski Declaration. See supra section I.B.1. … Even if not privileged, the Identifying Word is clearly LES for the reasons established by Defendants in the Brzozowski Declaration. See supra section I.B.1.

Nippon Steel Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Commission

25 Ct. Int'l Trade 1408 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 28, 2001

At no point does the ITC question the court’s authority to hear and decide the merits of the substantive issues raised in Plaintiffs’ complaints; nor would there be any basis for the ITC to do so, since the court clearly … As discussed in more detail in Plaintiffs’ Opposition, established legal precedent shows that an appointment to the ITC takes place when the President signs a commission — not when the

Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd. v. United States

387 F. Supp. 2d 1236 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 6, 2005

) (4) Request for revocation Commerce contends it properly determined that Hangzhou did not qualify for revocation of the antidumping order because Hangzhou did not meet the regulatory requirement of … Nevertheless, when an agency departs from its practice, it must “clearly set forth” the ground “so that the reviewing court may understand the basis of the agency’s action and so may judge the consistency of that action

Sparks Belting Company v. United States

715 F. Supp. 2d 1305 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 1, 2010

The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid a clearly unnecessary trial. See Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track and Court Constr., 98 F.3d 1318, 1321 (Fed. … Again, Type 2E7-0N White clearly meets this requirement. See Walsh Decl. ¶ 11; De Vries Aff. ¶ 6.

Data General Corp. v. United States

4 Ct. Int'l Trade 182 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 29, 1982

Plaintiff alleges that certain components of the printed circuit boards, integrated circuits called PROMs (programmable read only memories) were fabricated components, the product of the United States, and therefore qualified … It is sufficient that a change occur in any of the three criteria, the regulation clearly specifying the “name, character, or use.” United States v. International Paint Co. 35 CCPA 87 (1948).

Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co. Ltd. v. United States

2012 CIT 95 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 18, 2012

Accordingly, Jiulong’s claims were clearly within the scope of the original action, and are thus properly asserted in this action. 10 Narrow coil is steel strip classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) … The foregoing facts available discussion clearly demonstrates that Jiulong had two sets of documents relating to the steel used to make its grates.

Trans-Border Customs Services, Inc. v. United States

18 Ct. Int'l Trade 22 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 20, 1994

Upon National Sample’s request, Customs reconsidered its prior classification decision, ultimately changing its position by ruling that “the sample books do qualify as ‘samples’ within the context of subheading 9813.00.20 … Congress also could have further modified the heading in Column 1, Special, to clearly establish its intent to provide unconditional duty-free entry for articles from Canada.