Case law

Former Employee of Drive Sol Global Steering, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor

181 F. Supp. 3d 1369 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 13, 2016

STANDARD OF REVIEW The party seeking the Court’s jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. See Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006). … Moreover, “[w]here, as here, claims depend upon a waiver of sovereign immunity, a jurisdictional statute is to be strictly construed.” Celta Agencies, Inc. v. United States, 36 CIT __, __, 865 F.

Advanced Tech. & Materials Co., Ltd. v. United States

2013 CIT 42 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 28, 2013

to establish cash deposit rates that will prevail until an administrative review is completed or the deadline for review passes without a request therefor. … Legal consequences clearly flow from the section 129 determination, see Slip Op. 11-137 at 3-4, and the court therefore finds it “final” in the sense contemplated by Bennett v.

Parkdale International, Ltd. v. United States

491 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · United States Court of International Trade · May 11, 2007

. § 1675(a) determination which qualifies for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). … Those claims that involve clearly protestable matters, or are at the core of an antidumping or countervailing duty determination, must proceed under § 1581(a) or (c) respectively.

Former Employees of Tyco Electronics, Fiber Optics Div. v. US Dept. of Labor

350 F. Supp. 2d 1075 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 16, 2004

“The EAJA is a waiver of sovereign immunity that must be strictly construed.” Am. Bayridge Corp. v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1285 (2000). … Plaintiffs’ Application Fails to Establish that Plaintiffs’ are Eligible Parties.

Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. United States

2012 CIT 14 · 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.

Faus Group, Inc. v. United States

358 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 15, 2004

This rule was described most clearly in Fink v. … In contrast, the more specific provision included “only one article [] capable of qualifying as a circular saw.” Id.

Former Employees of Marathon Ashland Pipeline, LLC v. Chao

277 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 11, 2003

Even those workers clearly fitting under the rubric of oil production do not manufacture, create or transform. … The Court upheld the Secretary’s reasoning: The repair and maintenance of a ship is clearly a service to an existing commodity.

Empire Plow Co. Inc. v. United States

675 F. Supp. 1348 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 18, 1987

Plaintiff urges the ITC exceeded its authority by including these two domestic producers in the headcount of the rest of the domestic industry considered in establishing which industries constituted the “domestic indus *1351 … It is clearly within the ITC’s discretion to apply the related parties provision in its analysis of the facts of the case.

Kaiyuan Group Corp. v. United States

343 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · United States Court of International Trade · May 14, 2004

To uphold Commerce’s NME collapsing methodology, Commerce must have clearly articulated which set of factors formed the basis of its collapsing determination. See Hontex, 248 F. Supp. 2d at 1341 (CIT 2003). … It must then provide the court with a clearly articulated methodology for collapsing companies in NME countries.

Elkem Metals Co. v. United States

126 F. Supp. 2d 567 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 20, 2000

Elkem counters that the Government failed to establish a “legal basis for withholding” the documents (Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. … Supp. 212, 217 (1984) (“Once the proponent of privilege has complied with the established criteria for asserting privilege, the opposing party must demonstrate clearly and persuasively that the need for disclosure outweighs

Shinyei Corp. of America v. United States

33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1735 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 2, 2009

There is no question, therefore, that Shinyei qualifies as a prevailing party. See Hensley v. … Unless bad faith is established, a mere clerical error at the agency level does not automatically render the United States’ position unreasonable. Cummings v. Sullivan, 950 F.2d 492, 500 (7th Cir. 1991).

Daido Corp. v. United States

807 F. Supp. 1571 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 25, 1992

In light ... of these considerations, the ACA submits that the information qualifies for confidential treatment under 19 C.F.R. § 353.32 (a). ... In view of the ... … Whatever the particular responsibilities, the defendants and intervenor-defendant oppose grant of any stay, which can only occur when an applicant therefor establishes a threat of immediate irreparable harm, the likelihood

SDI Technologies Inc. v. United States

21 Ct. Int'l Trade 895 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 7, 1997

Moreover, this Court rejects SDI’s suggestion that the producer/consumer shift alone qualifies an article for duty-free status. … While the tests applied to establish conformance with these three statutes are similar, the outcomes may differ because the statutes differ both in language and in purpose. Id.

Plasticoid Manufacturing Inc. v. United States

28 F. Supp. 3d 1352 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 24, 2014

However, the language establishing the respective scopes of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders are identical. Accordingly, all provisions discussed in this section appear in both Orders. … And, as Plasticoid emphasizes, Plasticoid’s claim is that the straight edges qualify for a different exclusion – i.e., the finished merchandise exclusion.

F.W. Myers, Inc. v. United States

12 Ct. Int'l Trade 566 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 16, 1988

Under either provision, the merchandise would qualify for duty-free status. … Based on the foregoing definitions, the Court finds the dictionary and encyclopedia sources neither refute nor clearly establish the proposition that the primary characteristic of a tractor is the facility for pushing and

Washington Red Raspberry Commission v. United States

657 F. Supp. 537 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 17, 1987

unmistakably conveys discretion to the administering authority with respect to whether related party transactions should be disregarded”, 4 but the ITA representation quoted above that it “cannot” use transaction price is clearly … United States, 801 F.2d 1308, 1312 (Fed.Cir.1986), wherein the Court of Appeals stated: Since section 1516(a)(2)(A) specifies the terms and conditions upon which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity in consenting

Cormorant Shipholding Corp. v. United States

617 F. Supp. 2d 1270 · United States Court of International Trade · May 12, 2009

the Cormorant’s entry. 10 Of specific relevance to the motion to dismiss at issue here, Customs denied CSC’s protest as to Item 41, generally, because CSC had failed to provide sufficient information or documentation to qualify … In addition, the vessel repairs at issue here were clearly “imported.” 1 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, supra, at 1339 (“import” is defined as “[t]o bring in; to introduce from an external source; ... bring in (goods,

Heartland By-Products, Inc. v. United States

74 F. Supp. 2d 1324 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 19, 1999

Plaintiff has provided sufficient documentation to clearly and convincingly establish jurisdiction under §1581(h). … Customs clearly stated its position: “that the processing in this case is not legitimate tariff engineering.

Export Packers Co., Ltd. v. United States

795 F. Supp. 422 · United States Court of International Trade · May 20, 1992

Nevertheless, Export Packers insists that its imported merchandise should qualify for Item 806.20 treatment. … The law is well settled that Customs’ regulatory provisions under § 10.8(e), (f) and (g) for securing Item 806.20 treatment at the time of importation, clearly presuppose conformance with the mandatory prerequisites set forth

SNR Roulements v. United States

118 F. Supp. 2d 1333 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 13, 2000

In sum, to qualify for a LOT adjustment to NV, a party has the burden to show that the following two conditions have been satisfied: (1) the difference in LOT involves the performance of different selling … Cir. 1999) (noting that a respondent bears the burden of establishing entitlement to a LOT adjustment).