Case law

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.

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.”).

Nsk Ltd. v. United States

910 F. Supp. 663 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 14, 1995

Further, the standard established by Japanese law is not sufficiently similar to that established in section 773(e)(2) of the Tariff Act for us to rely on NSK’s compliance with that law as evidence that transfer prices paid … NSK’s reporting of post-sale price adjustments does not meet the standard set forth in Torrington to qualify as a direct selling expense.

Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States

535 F. Supp. 2d 1336 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 19, 2007

Even so, in Hynix I and Hynix II, the Court accepted that debt relief associated with complex restructuring programs of this type may qualify as a countervailable infusion of equity under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5)(B)(iii). … GOES is clearly distinguishable from the instant case because the pending approval in GOES was that of the European Community, which operated as a truly independent decisionmaking body. Id.

Win-Tex Products, Inc. v. United States

17 Ct. Int'l Trade 778 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 5, 1993

. § 353.29 (f) is applicable: As noted above, in the Final Scope Ruling, ITA found that Win-Tex does not qualify for a scope review analysis under 19 C.F.R. § 353.29 (f), which regulation (following 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)) … According to ITC, “shop towels are usually purchased by industrial laundries, which, in turn rent them to commercial and industrial establishments. * * * Shop towels are classified under item 366.2740 of the [TSUS.]”

Comeau Seafoods Ltd. v. United States

724 F. Supp. 1407 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 27, 1989

The Ipsco court clearly held that this may be at the subsidiary level for the purpose of ascertaining preference to a particular industry. … Plaintiff does not dispute that the Task Force qualifies as an interested party. 6 Commerce maintains it is not required to establish affirmatively that a petitioner has the support of a majority of a particular industry.

PPG Industries, Inc. v. United States

781 F. Supp. 781 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 12, 1991

The rationale of PPG III clearly applies to the instant case. Commerce had no new or materially different evidence before it in the 1986 review than it had in the 1984-1985 review with respect to FICORCA. … FICORCA (Trust Fund for Coverage of Exchange Risks) is a trust fund established by the Mexican government and the Bank of Mexico to help companies refinance foreign debt.

Prosegur, Inc. v. United States

140 F. Supp. 2d 1370 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 18, 2001

clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence not amounting to an error in the construction of a law, adverse to the importer and manifest from the record or established … Prosegur supports this argument by claiming that, “[i]f Customs had doubts as to whether the merchandise qualified as American Goods, then the information they needed for making their classification decision could be obtained

SMA Surfaces, Inc. v. United States

617 F. Supp. 3d 1263 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 12, 2023

Id. at 1381 & n.7 (footnote omitted) (“The relevant scope terms are ‘unambiguous’ if they have ‘a single or clearly defined or stated meaning.’” … And it is well established that “[p]ost-hoc rationalizations of agency actions first advocated by counsel in court may not serve as the basis for sustaining the agency’s determination.” U.H.F.C. Co. v.

Export Packers Co. Ltd. v. United States

2025 CIT 45 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 18, 2025

The government fails to establish cooking is not heat processing. … In fact, it is clearly in conflict with the applicable scope language. No further analysis under the applicable regulation is required.

Sundstrand Corp. v. United States

890 F. Supp. 1100 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 21, 1995

Those AFBs which are ultimately utilized in textile machinery are clearly covered by the investigations. Scope Appendix, 54 Fed.Reg. at 19,017. … Commerce refutes plaintiffs position, pointing out that Commerce has established notice and comment procedures to afford parties an opportunity to participate meaningfully in a scope proceeding.

Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. v. United States

2019 CIT 152 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 3, 2019

Third, pursuant to this court’s order, Commerce also provided Qixin the opportunity to demonstrate that any of its entries during the POR qualified as a sale of subject merchandise. See Remand Results at 29–33. … Here, Commerce argues that Canadian Solar’s suppliers “clearly” have an interest in selling to Canadian Solar because they have done so in this review. See Remand Results at 27.

Far East MacHinery Co., Ltd. v. United States

699 F. Supp. 309 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 24, 1988

Although the two prongs of ITA’s test are set out independently of one another, 4 until relatively recently neither plaintiff nor defendants articulated their arguments so as to clearly identify the prong of the test to which … Instead, a foreign country must make payment of import duties a prerequisite to receipt of an export rebate in order to qualify for an adjustment to U.S. price under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l) (1982).

Transcom, Inc. v. United States

121 F. Supp. 2d 690 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 7, 2000

SIEGEL, NEW YORK PRACTICE 82 (3d ed. 1999) (noting that “[c]ase law suggests . . . that not much is needed to qualify . . . as notice”). … The generalized language in Timken’s request clearly contradicts the requirement for “specified individual” identification posed by 19 C.F.R. § 353.22(a).

Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States

2013 CIT 29 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 6, 2013

The Court of Appeals further held that “[b]ecause it serves a substantial government interest, the Byrd Amendment is also clearly not violative of equal protection under the rational basis standard.” Id. … (emphasis added).12 Contrary to plaintiff’s view, SKF USA II did not establish a new test for ADP eligibility in order to conform the statute to the First Amendment.

Hutchinson Brokers, Inc. v. United States

2 Ct. Int'l Trade 225 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 23, 1981

Hence, the use of the words “chili * * * California” in the contract of purchase is clearly an admission against plaintiff’s interest. … Nakayama testified clearly that the imported merchandise belonged to the anaheim or California type or group of chili peppers.

Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v. United States

700 F. Supp. 538 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 31, 1988

The analyst also ascertained that Mitsubishi had qualified as a supplier of CMTs for Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company (NTT) during the period of investigation. Rec.Doc. 257 at 23. … Such examples of predestination are not for the ITC to establish and control.

Infantino, LLC v. United States

2014 CIT 155 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 24, 2014

The Funny Farmer certainly qualifies as cushioning, insofar as it is stuffed with a polyester-fiber filling and is designed to cushion a child in either of its configurations. … Otherwise, any product prima facie classifiable under at least one tariff heading pursuant to GRI 1 would be immune from composite classification under GRI 3(b).

Asia Wheel Co. v. United States

2025 CIT 18 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 21, 2025

EAPA establishes the procedure for an “interested party” to submit allegations of importer evasion of antidumping and countervailing liability. 19 U.S.C. § 1517(b). … During the investigations, Commerce established that “[t]he scope includes rims and discs that have been further processed in a third country.”

Universal Polybag Co., Ltd. v. United States

577 F. Supp. 2d 1284 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 28, 2008

These omissions are more than enough to establish that King Pac withheld information under the 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2) standard. … This language clearly limits the rate based on the deposited amount, not an amount that a final determination indicates should have been deposited.