Case law

Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States

186 F. Supp. 2d 1332 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 1, 2002

Cir. 1983); and (4) the plaintiff had no reason to suspect that the agency would refuse to adhere to clearly applicable precedent. See Philipp Bros., Inc. v. United States, 10 CIT 76, 79-80, 630 F. … Torrington, however, does not stand for the proposition that Commerce must grant a PSPA for all discounts or even each selling expense that might be qualified as a direct selling expense.

Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. United States

775 F. Supp. 3d 1354 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 10, 2025

As Deer Park explains, Commerce relied upon a footnote in the Commission Report to determine what qualifies as a precursor to dried crystalline glycine. … Most importantly, the Government’s brief does not establish that the Court No. 23-00238 Page 33 exhaustion of remedies doctrine is in fact applicable to scope

Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States

971 F. Supp. 2d 1296 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 28, 2014

the term as it is used by Agmarknet to categorize garlic.23 As the Second Remand 22 In their brief, the Domestic Producers actually misquote the Issues and Decision Memorandum, critically omitting the qualifying … Thus, two of the four price quotes fall clearly within the period of review, and the other two are dated a mere one week and three weeks after the period of review ended. See id., 35 CIT at ____, 800 F.

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”). . … Commerce established an "uncooperative” BIA rate equal to the “cooperative” one. Final Results, 62 Fed.Reg. at 6214.

Jilin Forest Indus. Jinqiao Flooring Grp. Co. v. United States

617 F. Supp. 3d 1343 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 9, 2023

“The statute clearly directs that Commerce must determine an individual rate for respondents chosen for individual examination as mandatory respondents, because they are ‘known’ exporters or producers.” … Only the agency’s interpretations reached through formal proceedings with the force of law qualify for Chevron deference, such as reasoned and published determinations or notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Goodluck India Ltd. v. United States

2019 CIT 110 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 13, 2019

to a provision of new factual information. 11 When questioned about this difference, the Government responded in Oral Argument that because Hoogovens’ mistakes resulted from a computer conversion error, it therefore qualified … Moreover, Federal Circuit progeny cases establish that the holding of NTNis not limited to pure typographical, or even clerical, errors. Papierfabrik August Koehler SE v.

Usec, Inc. v. United States

498 F. Supp. 2d 1337 · United States Court of International Trade · May 4, 2007

11 which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.” … Here, the contract renegotiations qualify as an exception justifying Commerce’s decision to use a date of sale methodology based on the contract renegotiation date. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b-1; Id.

Wagner Spray Tech Corp., Inc. v. United States

493 F. Supp. 2d 1265 · United States Court of International Trade · May 4, 2007

United States establishes that a product may be classified as a “pump”even where the product is composed of many other elements. Id. at 14. … Mechanical goods for the purpose of “projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids” clearly refer to a class of goods, whereas “paint pads” and “paint rollers” are a designation of goods by name.

Fedmet Resources Corp. v. United States

77 F. Supp. 3d 1336 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 26, 2015

This statement does not suffice to establish a case or controversy based on a continuing injury-in-fact. … At the same time, the issue of the country of origin of the merchandise on the December 2 entry clearly has relevance for this case.

Wilton Industries, Inc. v. United States

493 F. Supp. 2d 1294 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 11, 2007

The seminal case is Midwest of Cannon Falls, which established the basic criteria for classification of “festive articles” under heading 9505. See generally Midwest of Cannon Falls, Inc. v. … See Protests (annotated by Customs to indicate denial, stating simply that “merchandise does not qualify as toys or festive articles,” and that “mdse, does not qualify for either toys or festive articles”). *1322 Indeed,

Aimcor v. United States

86 F. Supp. 2d 1248 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 17, 1999

A review of that investigation, however, shows that the quoted statement is qualified by the clause "although not dispositive of the issue." Id. … An agency is not required to establish rules of conduct to last forever, but rather must be given ample latitude to adapt its rules and policies to the demands of changing circumstances. Rust v.

Toy Biz, Inc. v. United States

248 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 3, 2003

provision has indeed narrowed the scope of what can be classified as “dolls” when compared with the TSUS “dolls” provision which simply read “Dolls, and parts of dolls including doll clothing,” and was not restricted by any qualifiers … Some clearly resemble human beings, some clearly not.

Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd. v. United States

577 F. Supp. 2d 1304 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 2, 2008

Ultimately, the record does not indicate a clearly better method for valuation than the one used by Commerce. IV. … While Ningbo concedes that there is a preference for the valuation of raw materials from qualifying market suppliers where possible (19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1)), it notes that there is a qualification to this preference

Outokumpu Copper Rolled Products AB v. United States

17 Ct. Int'l Trade 848 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 12, 1993

Clearly, here, Outokumpu USA did not participate in sales and post sale activity to the extensive degree as did the selling agent in New Minivans from Japan. … Defendant-intervenors assert that Outokumpu USA qualified as a reseller (pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 353.2 (1992) and 19 C.F.R. § 353.26 (1992)), and the unrelated United States purchasers should be considered the “importers-in-fact

LG Electronics, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission

26 F. Supp. 3d 1338 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 6, 2014

The Commission’s test clearly falls within the range of permissible alternatives given to the agency by Congress. 7 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. … HEFL washers also qualify as Tier 3 HE machines but unlike CTLs and HETLs, they are front-loading.

Vitro Flex, S.A. v. United States

714 F. Supp. 1229 · United States Court of International Trade · May 30, 1989

Clearly this is not the intent of Congress. The usual procedure for requesting exclusion is to make such a request within 30 days after the publication of the notice of countervailing duty investigation. … "FOMEX is a trust established by the Government of Mexico to promote the manufacture and sale of exported products.

Admiral Division of Magic Chef, Inc. v. United States

14 Ct. Int'l Trade 868 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 28, 1990

The first place to look to establish the intent of Congress is the language of the statute itself. Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980). … time of day, and be capable being set by the user, this Court finds no definitive evidence in the record or in the sources cited that Congress intended those characteristics to be present in a device in order for it to qualify

Ford Motor Co. v. United States

44 F. Supp. 3d 1330 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 13, 2015

Thus, as Ford emphasizes, the language of subparagraph (C) “is not qualified or restricted in any way, and is without limitation with respect to the liquidation status of underlying [import] entries.” … The “plain meaning” reading of subparagraph (C) clearly will not apply to any drawback claims filed after December 3, 2004, including any claims that are filed in the future.

Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. United States

353 F. Supp. 2d 1374 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 8, 2004

Alcan argued that the additive should have been disregarded pursuant to the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex., and its imported merchandise classified as “goods originating in Canada” that qualified for the reduced MPF … Accordingly, Alcan has the burden of establishing the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. See Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

NSK Ltd. v. United States

217 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 8, 2002

Indeed, the process of including sample sales cannot be qualified as usage of facts otherwise available. Consol. Court No. 98-07-02527 Page 44 495, 513 (1987)). … Cir. 1983); and (4) the plaintiff had no reason to suspect that the agency would refuse to adhere to clearly applicable precedent. See Philipp Bros., Inc. v. United States, 10 CIT 76, 79-80, 630 F.