Case law

Ashley Furniture Indus., LLC v. United States

750 F. Supp. 3d 1329 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 20, 2024

Specifically, the Best Mattresses Court concluded that “Commerce erred in summarily stating that any asset plausibly qualifying as a ‘[b]alance with government authorities’ cannot be an indicator of government subsidies … Accordingly, plaintiffs have failed to establish the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing.9 Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.

Motor Wheel Corp. v. United States

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 385 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 20, 1995

Finally, Motor Wheel contends that, as a matter of law, it has established that its merchandise meets the requirements for duty-free entry under APTA. … Because the imported hose was an automotive component that required no further fabrication upon importation, 10 the Carr court held that it was clearly a fabricated component under APTA.

Ero Industries, Inc. v. United States

118 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 20, 2000

To the extent that such enclosure feature has any utility to young children, such utility is clearly incidental to its amusement value. … The words in Note 1(u) “or other camping goods” (emphasis added) immediately following “tents,” establishes the context in which the term “tents” is to be applied, and thereby circumscribes, qualifies, and limits the type

Xerox Corp. v. United States

2011 CIT 8 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 24, 2011

Clearly, as negative determinations are fully contemplated by the statute, Defendant’s view is unduly restrictive.  …  to this litigation,” federal regulations establish that U.S.

National Knitwear & Sportswear Ass'n v. United States

779 F. Supp. 1364 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 15, 1991

Though a court may reject an agency interpretation that contravenes clearly discernible legislative intent, its role when that intent is not contravened is to determine whether the agency’s interpretation is ‘sufficiently … It is well established that “[a] reviewing court usurps the agency’s function when it sets aside the administrative determination upon a ground not theretofore presented and deprives the [agency] of an opportunity *1372 to

Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC v. United States

908 F. Supp. 2d 1332 · 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 Bra Top. … Without objection from the plaintiff, defendant moved to qualify Ms.

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. v. United States

387 F. Supp. 2d 1270 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 18, 2005

The first reason for the court’s conclusion is the lack of substantial evidence on the record to support Commerce’s apparent finding that the information submitted by both plaintiffs did not qualify for use in calculating … Commerce does not attempt to establish such a relationship.

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States

359 F. Supp. 3d 1329 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 25, 2019

Commerce clearly explains that the issue on verification during the CVD investigation was whether respondents used the export buyer's credit program. See CVD Investigation Final Decision Memo at 91-94. … Trina's argument misplaces the burden for production of relevant information on Commerce and wrongly presumes that just because debt restructuring income can offset indirect selling expenses it automatically qualifies as

Lonza, Inc. v. United States

849 F. Supp. 51 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 25, 1994

Clearly, absent the ADC-6 moiety, Imi-penem is bereft of therapeutic (i.e. antibacterial) value. … Subheading 2941.90.50 is clearly absent from this group.

Catfish Farmers of Am. v. United States

2014 CIT 146 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 18, 2014

The plaintiffs here are not arguing that quantifiable differences can be concluded from the evidence of record; they are instead essentially arguing that Commerce should proceed from the assumption that qualifiable distinctions … Cir. 1987) (finding of irreparable injury was “clearly erroneous” when based on “having to comply with Commerce’s demands for data and verification” because “ordinary consequences of Consol.

Richard L. Jones Calexico, Inc. v. United States

30 Ct. Int'l Trade 1030 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 25, 2006

§ 1520(c) clearly states that Customs may reliquidate “any entry, liquidation, or other customs transaction” to correct “a clerical error, mistake of fact, or … evidence, Customs denied Spencer Fruit’s drawback claims either without complete knowledge of Spencer Fruit’s privileges or understood Spencer Fruit’s privileges to be other than what they were, both qualifying

Maui Pineapple Co., Ltd. v. United States

264 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 16, 2003

Maui asserts that this difference in United States rates demonstrates that Dole is a “most favored” borrower that is qualified for lower interest rates. (Id.) … Therefore, Maui posits that “[t]he average Canadian-dollar prime rate . . . that Dole selected is clearly higher than the rate Dole would actually have to pay” if Dole had actual borrowings in Canada. (Id.)

Husteel Co. v. United States

180 F. Supp. 3d 1330 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 2, 2016

The statute “does not establish a hierarchy or preference among these alternative methods.” Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. … Because drill pipe and stainless OCTG would qualify under Commerce’s definition of the same general category of product, but would not qualify as the foreign like product, Commerce has not impermissibly limited the definition

Turtle Island Restoration Network v. Mallett

110 F. Supp. 2d 1005 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 19, 2000

Steps that the government must take to receive a certification in the future shall be clearly identified. . . . … Clearly, the intent of sec-tion 609 is and has been to help prevent the extinction of sea turtles wherever they exist on Earth.

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committe v. United States

992 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · United States Court of International Trade · May 20, 2014

To discusses Ocean King’s establishment) and 20 (internal email cautioning Mr. To that Hilltop’s predecessor-in-interest “cannot have any Involve [sic] or any paper related! … Rather than reflecting a tangential matter, these circumstances clearly concern the core of the accuracy and reliability of Hilltop’s remaining statements to Commerce regarding its corporate structure, which had formed

Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States

949 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 30, 2013

Id.; see also n.6, supra (explaining how exporters establish that they qualify for separate rate). … Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992) (explaining that, even “where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs”).

Convertors Division of American Hospital Supply Corp. v. United States

11 Ct. Int'l Trade 832 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 5, 1987

As the court construes headnote 3(f), it is only the "other fibrous structures” portion of the definition of fibers that is subject to the qualifying use language: "suitable for the manufacture of textiles.” … The Explanatory and Background Materials to the Tariff Classification Study, Schedule 3 (Nov. 15, 1960), page 48, clearly demonstrate that the language in *837 headnote 3(f), "any other fibrous structure suitable for the

Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States

182 F. Supp. 2d 1314 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 14, 2001

an issue already decided unless (1) the evidence in a subsequent trial was substantially different, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to such issues, or (3) the decision was clearly … a The Actions of Customs’ Officers Give Rise to a “Treatment”, Without A Showing of Knowledge or Intent Defendant contends that “in order to qualify as [a] ‘treatment previously

Nucor Corp. v. United States

612 F. Supp. 2d 1264 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 24, 2009

Those two cases merely reflect Commerce’s policy of rejecting producers’ attempts to qualify for a startup adjustment by using projected or optimal production capacity to establish an artificially-inflated benchmark for … as of the contract date” (which, the Domestic Producers maintain, “is clearly not the case here”).

NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States

2000 CIT 64 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 5, 2000

Indeed, § 1677a(c)’s language clearly provides that subsection (c) adjustments must be made to the starting price used to “establish” EP. … Also, the language of § 1677a(c) as well as § 1677a(d) clearly provides that subsection (c) and (d) adjustments must be made to the starting price used to “establish” CEP.