Case law

Xerox Corp. v. United States

753 F. Supp. 2d 1355 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 24, 2011

to this litigation,” federal regulations establish that U.S. … Clearly, as negative determinations are fully contemplated by the statute, Defendant’s view is unduly restrictive. 7 .

Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States

553 F. Supp. 1052 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 18, 1982

It is now well established that generally four conditions must be met before a preliminary injunction is granted. … Indeed, the statutory language and legislative history clearly bear out the fact that Congress anticipated enjoining liquidation to be the rare exception established only by concrete proof rather than an automatic response

Halperin Shipping Co., Inc. v. United States

742 F. Supp. 1163 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 2, 1990

the Walker letter constituted a protestable “charge or exaction” for purposes of establishing jurisdiction in this Court. … Considerations of sovereign immunity mandate that the United States only be subject to suit when the statutorily defined terms of its consent have been duly met. United States v.

Southern Shrimp Alliance v. United States

617 F. Supp. 2d 1334 · United States Court of International Trade · May 15, 2009

The reconsideration procedure established by 19 C.F.R. § 159.64(c)(3) does not appear to conform to the internal advice procedure established by 19 C.F.R. § 177.11. … See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B) (requiring the court to hold unlawful and set aside agency action “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity”). G.

Wally Packaging, Inc. v. United States

578 F. Supp. 1408 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 31, 1984

When the court’s jurisdiction is challenged, the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. McNutt v. … However, the Customs Service response of July 27, 1981 clearly denied any reliquidation under § 1520(c)(1).

Candle Corp. of America v. United States International Trade Commission

259 F. Supp. 2d 1349 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 8, 2003

Furthermore, the second questionnaire clearly indicates that CCA did not support the petition. … Accordingly, the ITC’s determination that CCA could not qualify as an “affected domestic producer” due to its failure to support the petition is clearly supported by evidence in the record.

A Classic Time v. United States

942 F. Supp. 589 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 2, 1996

Relying on the axiom that, in the absence of express congressional consent to the award of interest separate from a general waiver of immunity to suit, the United States is immune from an interest award[ 2 ] the court of … In that case, the Service clearly was lacking information of the kind covered by section 1504(b)(1), supra Here, the matter is not as clear.

Cemex, S.A. v. United States

279 F. Supp. 2d 1357 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 12, 2003

The liquidation instructions of March 23, 1998, clearly state that they “constitute the immediate lifting of suspension.” … COURT NO. 93-10-00659 Page 8 made public, but alone the March 23, 1998 notice does not qualify.7 As proper deemed liquidation has not been established

Lda Incorporado\ v. United States

978 F. Supp. 2d 1359 · United States Court of International Trade · May 13, 2014

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. … One might question how to determine whether the goods clearly fall within the scope of the order.

Ford Motor Co. v. United States

978 F. Supp. 2d 1350 · United States Court of International Trade · May 9, 2014

In the context of NAFTA eligibility, the undetermined entry information is whether the merchandise qualifies for a preferential tariff rate under NAFTA. … Likewise, CBP's Federal Register Notice establishing the reconciliation program clearly states that a NAFTA CO is an entry record the presentation of which may be waived by CBP at the time of filing a reconciliation

American Permac, Inc. v. United States

703 F. Supp. 97 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 1, 1988

The ITA’s requirement that plaintiffs provide the actual price information with regard to home market sales to distributors, which the ITA knew did not exist, is clearly unreasonable, where the very absence of those sales … CONCLUSION The Court concludes that the ITA has failed to apply a reasonable standard in *104 determining that plaintiffs do not qualify for a level-of-trade adjustment.

Myers v. United States

969 F. Supp. 66 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 17, 1997

Furthermore, the evidence in this case clearly demonstrates that preserving jars of glass are used for commercial purposes, as well as in home canning and preserving applications. … Because plaintiffs have established the merchandise at issue is properly classifiable under subheading 7010.90.50, HTSUS, the merchandise clearly cannot be classified under Heading 7013 because that heading specifically excludes

Nufarm America's, Inc. v. United States

398 F. Supp. 2d 1338 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 5, 2005

In support of its contentions, Defendant argues that the statutory provisions pertinent to § 1581(a) jurisdiction demonstrate a clear legislative intent to limit the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity. … Plaintiff also claims that because it suffered substantial injury and because of its highly qualified counsel, it is distinctly able to represent and adequately protect the interest of the class.

Hartog Foods International, Inc. v. United States

138 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 28, 2000

Plaintiff later clearly characterized its claim as one for drawback under 19 U.S.C. § 1313 of lawful duties paid. … They must be clear in order to waive sovereign immunity. See IBM Corp. v. United States, 201 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed.

United States v. F.H. Fenderson, Inc.

11 Ct. Int'l Trade 657 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 25, 1987

In order to qualify for the award, the applicant must be a "prevailing party.” … At all relevant times in this action, it is apparent that the plaintiff has treated the facts as establishing two separate violations of § 1592.

Whirlpool Corp. v. United States

505 F. Supp. 2d 1358 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 18, 2007

Blankenship only as a “heater,” clearly designed to raise the temperature on the coils at the defrost timer’s signal. Blankenship 2d Aff. ¶ 21. … As established in section A above, the merchandise in question fits into the terms of Heading 9032.

Consolidated Bearings Co. v. United States

166 F. Supp. 2d 580 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 5, 2001

Supp. 454, 476 (1987); Rhone Poulenc, S.A., 7 CIT at 2 See note 1. 3 Consolidated Bearings’ argument that the case qualifies for the “clearly applicable precedent” exception because Consolidated … Had Commerce intended for the language of the Liquidation Instructions to set out Commerce’s new policy, Commerce’s action would clearly qualify as a rule and be subject to the notice and comment procedure detailed in

Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd. v. United States

712 F. Supp. 931 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 3, 1989

Department of Treasury, bad debt expenses qualify only as indirect selling expenses, unless they are directly attributable to the sales under review. … The above quotation from Ashland indicates clearly that the government counsel in that case did not “disavow the basis” for the agency’s action. Id.

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States International Trade Commission

239 F. Supp. 2d 1367 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 30, 2002

” was changed to read “successor has been qualified.” … In the absence of a clearly-expressed legislative intent, the Court will not speculate that the Congress sought to achieve a result which would be both unusual and probably beyond its constitutional power.”).

Friedman v. Kantor

21 Ct. Int'l Trade 901 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 11, 1997

Thus, Plaintiff, as a potential importer to the United States, is clearly not within the zone of interests protected by section 4721(b). … Plaintiff has similarly failed to establish that he was “adversely affected or aggrieved” within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 2171 (c)(1)(A).