Case law

Alloy Piping Products, Inc. v. United States

28 Ct. Int'l Trade 1805 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 28, 2004

- SPL's prayer that the underlying antidumping-duty order, pub- lished at 58 Fed.Reg. 33,250 (June 16, 1993), be revoked "on the basis of three years . . . of sales of fittings by [it] at not less than fair value, which qualifies … [C]ontrary to Ta Chen's claim that the intra-ware- house[14] expense was not a major omitted expense, the evidence on the record clearly indicates that Ta Chen failed to report a major expense.

Filmtec Corp. v. United States

293 F. Supp. 2d 1364 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 25, 2003

In GKD-USA, Inc., the Court found that there is no clearly stated Congressional intent as to the meaning of the phrase “straining cloth” as used in the tariff schedule, and construed it in accordance with … filtered mentioned; nor was it mentioned by Senator Durenberger in his remarks on proposing the original bill, by the Senate Report explaining the intent behind the provisions of the Customs and Trade Act 1990, of which the establishment

Ehrenreich Photo-Optical Industries, Inc. v. United States

10 Ct. Int'l Trade 203 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 26, 1986

On that score, the evidence of record clearly demonstrates that the imports possess the same basic components and function as hand-operated enlargers and are essentially "automated high-speed enlargers” (Tr. 129, 279-80, … Stated otherwise, defendant’s position is that only articles or devices which make the latent image visible, or are used in devices that make the latent image visible, qualify for tariff classification as photofinishing equipment

Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States

853 F. Supp. 2d 1365 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 2, 2012

Fairness requires that Commerce, before invoking an adverse inference, must have communicated its information requests clearly and adequately. … The record contained ample evidence to establish that CPZ and the importer were not related parties.

Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd. v. United States

760 F. Supp. 200 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 25, 1991

In this case, the establishment of the methodology was required but the procedure by which it was to be applied to the facts was left to the authority of Commerce. … The Court notes that this error was clearly inadvertent in nature and does not indicate in any way that Goldstar under-reported home market taxes.

Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. v. United States

308 F. Supp. 3d 1329 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 4, 2018

As discussed below, the court concludes that Trelleborg does not qualify for a remedy on any of these claims. 1. … Because it also contested the Final Results, Trelleborg will qualify for any such relief as well. III.

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States

807 F. Supp. 2d 1332 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 14, 2011

Each of these arguments are 10 Fish One did qualify for separate rate status and received a zero margin. Final Results, 74 Fed. Reg. 47,195–96. … As has been discussed, both the statute and regulations clearly make the grant of revocation discretionary. The argument advanced by Fish One is very similar to one dismissed by this Court in Hyundai.

Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States

755 F. Supp. 397 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 19, 1990

In certain instances, it is the foreign manufacturer or importer’s burden to provide commerce with adequate information to enable it to determine whether expenditures in the foreign market qualify as reductions to the FMV … To the Court, this clearly indicates that the agreement contemplated a flexibility to the traditional methodology and specifically provided that it could evolve in a number of ways.

Torrington Co. v. United States

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 403 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 31, 1995

The Department has the authority to determine what merchandise qualifies as such or similar for the purposes of the statute. [Citation omitted.] … Torrington failed to establish that good cause existed for Commerce to verify FAG’s cost of production data.

Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. United States

2023 CIT 125 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 23, 2023

Instead, Borusan Mannesmann II requires courts to use a “proclamation-specific approach” that focuses “on the character” of the proclamation to determine if the President intended a specific duty to qualify as a United … Commerce proceeded to explain that its current practice for the IPR was to require “sufficient documentation establishing [the IPC’s] closure by the GOT.” IDM at 7.

United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc.

558 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · United States Court of International Trade · May 28, 2008

BooARo, Customs LAw se AoMrNIsrRAnoN § 32.5, at ‘][ 211 (3d ed. 2007) (”The grammatical rule of construction that a qualifying clause modifies only its immediate antecedent has been held inapplicable where such a construction … With respect to the 3 entries withdrawn by Customs at trial, se_e note 8, Ljm, Customs has not established that they were rnisclassified. B.

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States

350 F. Supp. 2d 1186 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 14, 2004

of ‘lowest price’ and other considerations in choosing among qualified suppliers only”). … has been established, leaving price and volume the essential factors to be negotiated.

NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc. v. United States

20 Ct. Int'l Trade 759 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 18, 1996

In this case, Commerce found control by TMS over TMCC to be clearly evident by the record. … Eligibility for the ORS retrofit was not tied to warranty periods — an eligible forklift truck qualified for the ORS retrofit, regardless of whether the forklift truck was still covered by warranty.

Asociacion Colombiana De Exportadores De Flores v. United States

6 F. Supp. 2d 865 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 2, 1998

Further, Commerce clearly articulated the basis for its change. … The facts surrounding Commerce’s finding with regard to Flores Estrella clearly are distinguishable from those presented here.

Mitsubishi Materials Corp. v. United States

820 F. Supp. 608 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 27, 1993

The legislative history of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 clearly envisioned utilization of a test of this nature. … In their effort to distinguish these precedents, plaintiffs quote qualifying language in Crushed Limestone from Mexico, USITC Pub. 2533, Inv. No. 731-TA-562 (Prelim.)

Earth Island Institute v. Christopher

942 F. Supp. 597 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 8, 1996

Certainly, they have had ample opportunity to propose, if not realize, legislative amelioration of what is now clearly perceived to be a daunting remedy. … Clearly, the plaintiffs at bar have served the public interest by assisting in the interpretation and implementation of section 609.

Hyundai Elecs. Indus. Co. v. United States

2004 CIT 37 · 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. United States, 27 CIT __, __, 248 F. … Clearly, three distinct areas of semiconductor technology are converging to benefit the SRAM device performance.” See Final Results, 64 Fed.

Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. v. United States

783 F. Supp. 2d 1292 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 22, 2011

But, here, all other things clearly are not equal. See id., 33 CIT at ____, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 1145. … However, that does not mean that the agency’s choice between Indian import data and domestic price quotes is immune from judicial review.

Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) Inc. v. United States

2023 CIT 82 · United States Court of International Trade · May 26, 2023

Cir. 2017) (establishing that “[t]he tenth-digit statistical suffixes . . . are not statutory.”). … Nature’s Touch argues that its merchandise qualifies for duty-free treatment under NAFTA because the products originate in Canada.

One World Techs., Inc. v. United States

380 F. Supp. 3d 1300 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 11, 2019

One World also argued that other, "future shipments ... destined for the U.S. in the coming weeks and months" would qualify for preimportation. TRO & PI Hr. … Cir. 1998) (reasoning that "where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs") (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan , 503 U.S. 140 , 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081 , 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) ).