Case law

Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States

25 Ct. Int'l Trade 816 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 18, 2001

Plaintiffs maintain that Commerce's analysis unduly requires the petitioners to affirmatively establish a case for countervailability at the time the subsidy is alleged. Id. … Rather, a separate and more exhaustive analysis has to be conducted in order to determine whether the purchase of such shares qualifies as a countervailable subsidy.

Acciali Speciali Terni S.P.A. v. United States

206 F. Supp. 2d 1344 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 4, 2002

Around the same time that IRI established AST S.r.l. as a separate corporation, IRI made a public offering for its sale. … Under Law 451/94, qualified steel workers applying for benefits in 1994, 1995, and 1996 could receive early retirement packages.

Invenergy Renewables LLC v. United States

2019 CIT 153 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 5, 2019

[and] [t]here is nothing in the statute that clearly deprives the USTR of that default authority.”) (emphasis added) (citations omitted)). … As Invenergy explains, it “will thus not qualify for the Investment Tax Credit (“ITC”) safe harbor [ . . . ].

United States v. Washington International Insurance

374 F. Supp. 2d 1265 · United States Court of International Trade · May 12, 2005

Throughout the relevant period (1981 to 1993), each of the importers entries from Guam were [sic] ac- companied by a computed value statement clearly breaking out the amounts for Guamian expenses and profits … The purpose of this method of determining the appraised value of the entered merchandise was to ensure that the merchandise qualified for duty-free treatment pursuant to HTSUS [9902].61.00

Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass'n v. United States

93 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 11, 2000

United States, 2 CIT 1 , 7, 519 F.Supp. 911, 915 (1981)(“Clearly, the Commission, like this Court, is a continuing institution, regardless of changes in its membership.”). … Nevertheless, this tension in language does not clearly indicate that Vice Chairman Miller did not participate in the remand.

Stalexport v. United States

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 758 · United States Court of International Trade · May 23, 1995

As the majority notes, a very large percentage of this product category is sold in a few, long established, well known grades in [sic] which are produced by most domestic and foreign producers. Id. … Moreover, in addition to considering Poland’s final antidumping duty margin, Commissioner Nuzum clearly assessed various factors in reaching her conclusion regarding Polish plate imports.

China Processed Food Import & Export Co. v. United States

536 F. Supp. 2d 1347 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 31, 2008

The Court concluded that “Commerce abused its discretion and acted unreasonably in changing its . . . methodology . . . in the latest reviews, thereby preventing [Shikoku] from qualifying for consideration for revocation … Supp. 2d 1368, 1374 (2004), for the principle that an agency discarding one methodology in favor of another must state clearly the grounds for its departure from prior norms. COFCO’s Mem. of P. & A. 11.

Hardware Res., Inc. v. United States

2026 CIT 38 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 21, 2026

The threshold phrase is followed by several qualifiers, such as “made of wood” and “continuously shaped.” Final Scope Ruling at 2–4. … [b]y contrast, the listed examples of uses did not establish the end-use restriction requested by Hardware Resources” (citing PDM at 8, 16–18)).

Gov't of Canada v. United States

686 F. Supp. 3d 1320 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 15, 2024

. § 2631, Congress established a right to intervene in actions commenced under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. … The Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors are U.S. importers and Canadian producers/exporters of softwood lumber, who argue that they qualify as parties to the proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B) because in their written

Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal v. United States

361 F. Supp. 3d 1314 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 23, 2019

Congress, thus, clearly intended the adjustment to capture the amount of duties Plaintiffs would have paid on their export sales but for the exportation of that merchandise. … were established on that alternate date.

Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. United States

704 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 30, 2010

DISCUSSION Hitachi has the burden of establishing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (a) or (i). See Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2006). … Instead, “[t]he intent of Congress is clearly evidenced by the contrasting statutory provisions relating to a protest subject to accelerated disposition.” Id.

Tabacos de Wilson, Inc. v. United States

2018 CIT 138 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 12, 2018

Where claims for relief may qualify under either the APA or 28 U.S.C. § 1361, various Circuit Courts of Appeals have likewise analyzed such claims under the APA. See Hollywood Mobile Estates Ltd. v. … established their right to this “extraordinary remedy.”

ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane Ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. v. United States

2023 CIT 124 · 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 … Here, though, Icdas’s new factual information submission, allegedly applicable to one drawback request, failed to comply with the requirements for such late filed information of “clearly explain[ing] why the information

NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United States

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 1221 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 2, 1995

The statutory scheme clearly places the responsibility for making determinations concerning re-exportation of merchandise on Commerce rather than on Customs. … Specifically, NTN failed to explain what accounts were included in the claimed offset, how the offset was related to manufacturing operations, and notably how “income from sales of marketable securities” qualified as interest

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States

155 F. Supp. 2d 750 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 22, 2001

Determination. 4 According to TIB regulations, articles brought into the United States temporarily and pursuant to Chapter 98, Subchapter XIII, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"), may qualify … According to Plaintiff, evidence in the record clearly established that a downcycle for titanium sponge was likely in the foreseeable future, and that the Commission erred in its determination that the industry was unlikely

Nihon Cement Co. v. United States

17 Ct. Int'l Trade 400 · United States Court of International Trade · May 25, 1993

The “traditional deference courts pay to agency interpretation is not to be applied to alter the clearly expressed intent of Congress.” Serampore Indus. Pvt., Ltd. v. … Therefore, the court finds that the record does not establish that there is substantial evidence to support collapsing Nihon and its related companies.

Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. United StatesPublic version posted 10/08/2020.

475 F. Supp. 3d 1350 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 8, 2020

There, the court ruled that a given cost of retooling, as a proportion of a company’s fixed asset value, may not on its own qualify as “substantial.” Id. … Cir. 2006) (“Our law is well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived.”).

Valley Fresh Seafood, Inc. v. United States

31 Ct. Int'l Trade 1989 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 17, 2007

Valley Fresh alleges that, as an importer of merchandise that is subject to the antidumping duty order, it qualifies as an “interested party” as defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9)(A) (2000). Compl. ¶ 3. … Cir. 1998) (reasoning that “‘where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs . . . .’”) (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992)).

National Fisheries Institute, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Customs & Border Protection

637 F. Supp. 2d 1270 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 25, 2009

Defendant attempts to qualify or explain its admission, adding that “CBP elected to first target its enforcement efforts upon a single product.” Id. … such policy, or considerations of agency convenience, to stand in the way of providing plaintiffs the relief to which they qualify, as a remedy for the unlawful agency determinations to which they were subjected.

CPC International, Inc. v. United States

933 F. Supp. 1093 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 8, 1996

Customs ruled that under thé interim regulations, CPC’s retad containers of finished peanut butter, containing but a small quantity of Canadian-origin peanut slurry, do not qualify for the exception from marking under 19 … Clearly, in implementing the Act by regulations pursuant to § 3314(a) it was neither “necessary” nor “appropriate” for Customs to abrogate the application of Gib *1102 son-Thomsen for NAFTA goods pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 134.35