Case law

ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N v. v. United States

2011 CIT 82 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 12, 2011

ASB asserts, therefore, that because qualifying language is absent from the Orders, “4.75 mm" can only refer to an actual measurement, and Commerce may not now change the Orders by injecting ambiguity where none exists … In everyday parlance, “4.75 mm" may have an established meaning.

United States v. Continental Seafoods, Inc.

672 F. Supp. 1481 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 27, 1987

Since the demand for liquidated damages is a decision as to “charges or exactions” which is clearly protestable under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 (a)(3) (1982), plaintiff argues that the defendants must file a timely protest to preserve … Additionally, the Court, contrary to defendants’ intimations, does not presume that the government will deliberately withhold the notice of refusal of admission (assuming the goods do not qualify for admission) once notice

Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. United States

661 F. Supp. 1206 · United States Court of International Trade · May 22, 1987

With that established, the Court turns to a consideration of the questions presented. A. … The Court does not view the telephone call to plaintiffs’ counsel, see infra at n. 2, as establishing any deadline. 9 .

Committee to Preserve American Color Television v. United States

527 F. Supp. 341 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 18, 1981

Sections 17 and 20 merely established a procedure for the exercise of that authority. Moreover, a comparison of section 18 and section 618 leaves no doubt but that the former is the predecessor of the latter. … According to the plaintiffs here, just as the court read the qualifying phrase “engaged in commerce” into the provision in question because it appeared in related provisions, so too this court should read the phrase “fines

Lerner New York, Inc. v. United States

908 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · United States Court of International Trade · May 1, 2013

Armillas qualifies as an expert in the design of brassieres and in garments identical or similar to the Bodyshaper. … Without objection from plaintiff, defendant moved to qualify Ms.

United States v. Maverick Marketing, LLC

295 F. Supp. 3d 1349 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 7, 2018

An importer of record qualifies is a “person.” … However, Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently establishes that Plaintiff’s argument as to “purported price,” see Compl. at ¶¶ 15–19, is related to its argument that Maverick and Good Times had a special arrangement or scheme

Nsk Ltd. v. United States

245 F. Supp. 2d 1335 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 9, 2003

Commerce states that it has examined the record with respect to NTN’s alleged home market sample sales to determine if these sales qualify for such an exclusion. … NTN claims that the record clearly shows that the expenses excluded Consol.

Mannesmann-Sumerbank Boru Endustrisi T.A.S. v. United States

86 F. Supp. 2d 1266 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 23, 1999

The issue before the Court, then, is whether Commerce’s Final Results are consistent with its established practice. … Commerce’s rationale for doing so is that a "lack of clearly defined commercial accounting principles and the predominance of tax law mean that Turkish law should be treated with extreme caution, and international accounting

Glock, Inc. v. United States

736 F. Supp. 3d 1279 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 4, 2024

A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify … If a responding party objects to a request for admission, it must clearly state the grounds for the objection. USCIT R. 36(a)(5).

Former Employees of Barry Callebaut v. Herman

177 F. Supp. 2d 1304 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 2, 2001

In response, Defendant filed a Motion for a Voluntary Remand “for the purpose of allowing the agency to conduct an additional investigation and to make a redetermination as to whether petitioners qualify for certification … As this would clearly circumvent the purpose of NAFTA TAA, Plaintiffs’ argument fails. 5 The court notes that Congress requires a “significant number or proportion of the workers” be displaced in order

RSI (India) Pvt., Ltd. v. United States

687 F. Supp. 605 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 27, 1988

However, “[t]he traditional deference courts pay to agency interpretation is not to be applied to alter the clearly expressed intent of Congress.” Board of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. v. Dimension Fin. … Commerce’s decision not to include the company-specific experiences is consistent with its established policy for short-term loans.

Cabot Corp. v. United States

620 F. Supp. 722 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 4, 1985

Section 1303 clearly delineates those elements that, if present, require the assessment of countervailing duties. … The certificates were direct export subsidies with their value equal to a percentage of the value of qualifying exports. 2 .

Penrod Drilling Co. v. United States

727 F. Supp. 1463 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 13, 1989

In 1984, § 1505 was amended to add § 1505(c), which established interest on delinquent duties commencing on the 15th day after liquidation. … Moreover, in denying plaintiff’s petitions here, Customs stated that “a protest may not deal with questions of remission of duty on items that are covered by the statute and are clearly subject to dutiable classification.

Alloy Piping Products, Inc. v. United States

201 F. Supp. 2d 1267 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 11, 2002

Therefore, it is sensible to establish a bright line rule for determining viability. … For example, with respect to the early payment discount offered by Kanzen to its U.K. customer but not its U.S. customers, Commerce noted that: The record is clearly developed from the sales verification as to establish

United States Steel Corp. v. United States

33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1935 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 30, 2009

Essar’s financial statement clearly establishes that the company did not qualify for benefits under the program until March 21, 2007, upon its fulfillment of certain conditions. Pub. … Doc. 138 at 9, and that “benefits are not available to facilities established in” Visakapatnam. Pub. Doc. 138 at 8.

Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd. v. United States

466 F. Supp. 3d 1334 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 11, 2020

Thus, the regulation provides for the establishment of a benchmark. … The evidence before Commerce supported its specificity finding because the industries that used crude palm oil were sufficiently discrete and clearly defined subsets of the Indonesian economy.

Industrial Quimica del Nalon, S.A. v. United States

15 Ct. Int'l Trade 240 · United States Court of International Trade · May 24, 1991

” of what ITA considers sufficient to establish a technical services adjustment for salaried employees were cited. … Commerce’s desire to obtain documentation should not fly in the face of established business practice, and should not be transformed into a do-or-die requirement.

Frontier Insurance v. United States

276 F. Supp. 2d 1334 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 17, 2003

For purposes of this matter, the congres- sional express waiver of sovereign immunity is found in 28 U.S.C. … The roles of Customs and Commerce have been clearly differentiated by the 1979 act and are reflected in the foregoing subsections 1581(a) and (c).

AM/NS Calvert LLC v. United States

2023 CIT 129 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 6, 2023

The facts asserted in the pleadings establish that Commerce’s exclusion denials are the source of the al- leged harm. … But it also contains an exception, one that restored the government’s immunity as to “trust or In- dian lands.” Id. (quoting § 2409a(a)).

Superior Com. Sols. LLC v. United States

2025 CIT 147 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 26, 2025

The statute clearly states that “the Commissioner shall initiate an investigation” no later than 15 business days after receiving an allegation. 19 U.S.C. § 1517(b)(1). … Cir. 2006) (It is “well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived.”).