Case law

Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States

633 F. Supp. 1382 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 24, 1986

While Congress enacted the administration’s proposal, it also added the qualifying clause: but only to the extent that such taxes are added to or included in the price of *1396 such or similar merchandise when sold in the … Congress clearly could not have intended an interpretation of § 1677a(d)(l)(C) along the lines advanced by Matsushita et al.

Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. v. United States

34 Ct. Int'l Trade 1262 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 27, 2010

Moreover, the Department concluded, inter alia: The [[ ]] certificates submitted by Since Hardware are clearly not forms used by the [[ ]]. … On remand Commerce shall reexamine the record to again determine if Since Hardware has produced evidence sufficient to qualify for application of a separate rate.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States

11 Ct. Int'l Trade 76 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 6, 1987

See, e.g., Nakajima All Co., 29 CIT at 173 ("Clearly, disclosure * * * may cause incalculable harm.”). The Court must also consider the potential effect on other persons if McDermott’s information is released. … Cir. 1980) (third party claim of work product privilege in documents sought qualifies as interest relating to the subject of the action); but cf. Donaldson v.

Hercules, Inc. v. United States

673 F. Supp. 454 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 20, 1987

follows: (6) Net Subsidy. — For the purpose of determining the net subsidy, the administering authority may subtract from the gross subsidy the amount of— (A) any application fee, deposit, or similar payment paid in order to qualify … The case law set forth above clearly includes regional preference programs as countervailable subsidies.

Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. v. United States

228 F. Supp. 3d 1359 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 8, 2017

To establish the pure question of law exception the following requirements must be met: (a) . . . plaintiff shall raise a new argument; (b) this argument shall be of purely legal nature; (c) … Commerce must reconcile these inconsistencies on remand and more clearly explain its reasoning without the assistance of post- hoc explanations from counsel. See Changzhou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co. v.

Chaparral Steel Co. v. United States

698 F. Supp. 254 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 28, 1988

This investigation, as established by the record presented for review in this case and contrary to the assertions of the defendant and defendant-intervenor, resulted in a final affirmative determination. … The legislative history also establishes that the marketing of imports, not the investigations be reasonably coincident in time.

Butler v. United States

442 F. Supp. 2d 1311 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 30, 2006

In any event, the date on the envelope would appear to be a critical piece of evidence for the Government – key to establishing the actual “date of the notice of suspension.” … And, under the circumstances of this case, it is not clear how the precise “date of the notice of suspension” can be definitively established.

Former Employers of Merrill Corp. v. United States

483 F. Supp. 2d 1256 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 28, 2007

Displaced workers will qualify for assistance if they satisfy one of the two methods set forth in the Trade Act. … Likewise, if Plaintiffs’ design production were immune to direct competition as Labor claims, off-shoring could not have affected Plaintiffs’ jobs by reducing demand for their designs. Id. at *18-19.

Royal Thai Government v. United States

441 F. Supp. 2d 1350 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 26, 2006

Deductions may be made for: (A) any application fee, deposit, or similar payment paid in order to qualify for, or to receive, the benefit of the countervailable subsidy, (B) any loss in the value of the … Instead, Commerce must affirmatively establish the non-countervailability of the tariff rate selected for use as a benchmark in benefit analysis.

Snap-on, Inc. v. United States

949 F. Supp. 2d 1346 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 16, 2013

The review establishes a new margin based on actual entries during the prior year. … While this case derives from a challenge to an investigation, the extent of a party’s private right to a rate has been clearly articulated in the context of administrative reviews.

Sunpreme Inc. v. United States

145 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 8, 2016

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. … Since Plaintiff is complaining about the ultra vires suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits, which were clearly based upon CBP’s interpretation of the ambiguous language of the Orders excluding thin film

Hyundai Electronics Industries Co. v. United States

342 F. Supp. 2d 1141 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 16, 2004

Here, Commerce did not clearly act outside the bounds of its discretion in conducting verification. See Hontex Enter., Inc. v. … Furthermore, Hyundai explains that it has chosen to deposit the full amount of severance benefits with the insurance companies in order to qualify for tax benefits. Id.

Estee Lauder, Inc. v. United States

815 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 3, 2012

The first issue to be decided is whether the cosmetics, brushes and associated cases together qualify as “goods put up in sets for retail sale”. … that the articles are clearly intended for use together for a single purpose or activity to comprise a set under GRI 3(b).”

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States

282 F. Supp. 3d 1332 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 10, 2018

For example, where an importer sold a total of 90 identical units of CORE, 50 of which did not qualify for the special rule and 40 of which did qualify for the special rule, if Commerce were to apply the special rule to the … Hyundai does not argue here that its sales of SSBs qualify for the “special rule.” Pl. Br. at 33–35.

Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A.Ş. v. United States

321 F. Supp. 3d 1270 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 6, 2018

Commerce applies a two-pronged test to determine whether a producer qualifies for a duty drawback adjustment. See Saha Thai, 635 F.3d at 1340. … The law clearly requires Commerce to explain the basis for its decisions. See, e.g., NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316, 1319–20 (Fed.

Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. United States

844 F. Supp. 2d 1324 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 24, 2012

A (a pair of the boots at issue) establishes, and the parties do not contest, that the foxing or foxing- like band on the Classic Crochet UGG boots is not “wholly or almost wholly of rubber or plastics” and therefore this … ‘slip-on type’ qualifies the term ‘footwear.’”

United States v. KAB Trade Co.

21 Ct. Int'l Trade 297 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 26, 1997

Defendants clearly had time to prepare and present a response “as to why a claim for a monetary penalty should not be issued in the amount stated.” 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (b)(1)(A)(vii) (1994). … Bavarian Motors, Inc., 4 CIT 83 , 86 (1982), and administrative agencies are not immune from that requirement. Priority Products, 793 F.2d at 300 ; Bavarian Motors, Inc., 4 CIT at 86.

Supermarket Systems, U.S., Inc. v. United States

13 Ct. Int'l Trade 907 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 27, 1989

Thus, the Openmatic is clearly more than a sound or visual signalling apparatus. At trial, Mr. … They are placed near the entrance way to these establishments where they channel persons into the establishment. Id. at 18.

Peg Bandage, Inc. v. United States

17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1337 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 15, 1993

Peg has failed to establish the timeliness of its protests as to entry nos. 84-449275-1 and 85-565749-1. … As a result, Peg’s bandages qualify for preferential tariff treatment under Item 807.00, TSUS.

United States v. American Home Assurance Co.

151 F. Supp. 3d 1328 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 17, 2015

Nor would it make much practical sense in these commercial cases to require a surety to establish certain of its contractual rights in one forum, and then require the surety to establish other rights under the same contract … The Government clearly did not intend to abandon its claimed right to post-liquidation interest under 19 U.S.C. § 1505(d).