Case law

NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United States

186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 24, 2002

A zero-priced transaction does not qualify as a “sale” and, therefore, by definition cannot be included in Commerce’s NV calculation. … Koyo maintains that this proposed methodology would qualify as “another reasonable basis” pursuant to § 1677a(e). See id. at 27.

Shandong Ttca Biochemistry Co. v. United States

774 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · United States Court of International Trade · May 11, 2011

They purchase on a global basis from multiple qualified suppliers, and they are aware of prices available in the major markets. As a result, they have an intimate understanding of their input markets. … However, “[t]he Commission’s analysis of demand and supply conditions clearly covered 2008, providing sufficient context by which to evaluate the negotiations of the 2009 contracts, inasmuch as they occurred in 2008.”

TR Int'l Trading Co. v. United States

433 F. Supp. 3d 1329 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 16, 2020

TRI sought “duty free treatment for the merchandise as qualifying goods under the Generalized System of Preferences.” Id. ¶ 2. … While TRI accurately quotes the court’s statement that “the jurisdictional facts which might establish 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) jurisdiction . . . have not been established” and, “[i]n such an uncertain situation, preservation

Smith Corona Corp. v. United States

698 F. Supp. 240 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 20, 1988

The general physical characteristics remain substantially the same, and a PET with text memory clearly retains its typewriter identity. … Thus, they hardly qualify as replacements for electronic typewriters even though arguably more sophisticated. See id,., Exhibit 7(8).

Usec Inc. v. United States

281 F. Supp. 2d 1334 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 16, 2003

at 33-34 (noting that the contractual provisions specifying that a utility obtains title to LEU are necessary because “if title to the product material were not specified clearly in the contract, there could … In its Remand Determination, Commerce concludes that in order to qualify as the producer of a good for the purposes of industry Court No. 02-00112, 113, 114; Page 24 Consol.

Blink Design, Inc. v. United States

986 F. Supp. 2d 1348 · United States Court of International Trade · May 21, 2014

Moreover, “[w]here, as here, claims depend upon a waiver of sovereign immunity, a jurisdictional statute is to Court No. 14-00032 Page 6 be strictly … While this finding clearly dictates that Plaintiff must find its judicial remedy for the seizure, if any, in district court, it does not completely dispose of the matter before the court.

Atteberry v. United States

31 Ct. Int'l Trade 133 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 25, 2007

Indeed, the language of the opinion itself emphasizes that it “represents no grand assault on the citadel of sovereign immunity.” Atteberry III, 27 CIT at 1094. … But Atteberry III clearly distinguished this case from the line of cases that the Government cites. See Atteberry III, 27 CIT at 1081 & n.32.

GGB Bearing Tech. (Suzhou) Co. v. United States

2017 CIT 164 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 12, 2017

Commerce determined that GGB qualified as 1 All citations to the United States Code and to the Code of Federal Regulations herein are to the 2012 editions. … Commerce decided against using Koyo’s financial statement, concluding that it did not establish that Koyo produced bearings.

Magnesuim Corp. of America v. United States

20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1092 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 27, 1996

Commerce also established a 100.25 percent “All Others” rate based on best information available (“BIA”), which applied to all exporters not assigned an individual rate. … Plaintiffs’ claim, rather, proposes a blind, punitive use of BIA, which is clearly disfavored. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Marine Harvest (Chile) S.A. v. United States

244 F. Supp. 2d 1364 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 31, 2002

According to Commerce, “evidence on the record establishe[d] that [the post-merger] Marine Harvest . . . … Therefore, Marine Harvest would have been misreading the statute to assume it qualified for a new shipper review.

Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States

2025 CIT 131 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 6, 2025

In both the Final 2020 Review and the Final 2021 Review, Commerce premised its determination of specificity as a matter of law on its view that the “universe of companies” that qualify for the exemption is limited to those … When Kaptan clearly raised a § 1677m(d) argument, both the Government and RTAC submitted a fully developed counterargument in their response briefs. See Gov’t Br. at 22–23; Def.-Inter.’s Br. at 18–19.

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. United States

21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1353 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 10, 1997

Commerce noted in its Amended Final Determination that it considered certain arguments raised by plaintiffs to be non-ministerial, and stated its choice and application of a specific surrogate manganese ore value does not qualify … Plaintiffs argue “the evidence of record establishes that [the Indian] ore used for pig iron is not in fact used nor can it be used to make electrolytic manganese metal.” (Id. at 22.)

United States v. Zatkova

791 F. Supp. 2d 1305 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 11, 2011

Bass River, 82 F.R.D. 122, 125 (D.N.J. 1979) (“Clearly, leaving process at defendants’ place of employment does not qualify under the dwelling house or place of abode method.”). … In Rodrigue, “the Government . . . could hardly have done less to effect service of process on the Defendants within the 120-day period established for that purpose.

United States v. Wanxiang Am. Corp.

654 F. Supp. 3d 1279 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 16, 2023

Those allegations establish falsity and 6 See 31 U.S.C. § 3729. … Wanxiang’s own legal theory relies on the premature factual finding that its universal joints are “clearly not a part of an engine or a motor.” Def.’s Br. at 47 (emphasis omitted).

Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n

2005 CIT 63 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 7, 2007

Crawford)("While 'imminent' clearly indicates a forward-looking analysis, there is no specific guidance from the statute"). 5 Id. 6 SAA, p. 856. … Int'l Trade Comm’n, 26 CIT 29, 39, 180 F.Supp.2d 1360, 1371 (2002), concluded that the producers’ ability to increase shipments to this country "within one to two years" qualified as imminent.

Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission

29 Ct. Int'l Trade 562 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 7, 2005

Int'l Trade Comm’n, 26 CIT 29 , *571 39, 180 F.Supp.2d 1360, 1371 (2002), concluded that the producers’ ability to increase shipments to this country “within one to two years” qualified as imminent. … Crawford) (“While ‘imminent’ clearly indicates a forward-looking analysis, there is no specific guidance from the statute”). Id. SAA, p. 856.

Pomeroy Collection, Inc. v. United States

246 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 19, 2002

Both the classified and claimed tariff provisions in this case are properly preceded by the prefix “MX,” to indicate that the goods qualify for the duty rate applicable to products of Mexico. … Thus, for example, GRI 3(a)’s pointed references to “the heading,” “headings,” and “those headings” clearly refer back to the phrase “under two or more headings” in the introductory language of GRI 3.

Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc. v. United States

414 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 26, 2006

If a “clerical error” qualifies as neither a mistake of law nor a mistake of fact, it may not, under the Hambro framework, be considered a mistake at all. … Supp. 2d at 1351-52 record or established by documentary evidence.” 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c) (1999). Consol.

Dal-Tile Corp. v. United States

28 Ct. Int'l Trade 358 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 16, 2004

The evidence presented by Dal-Tile in support of its split-tile method clearly demonstrated the reliability of the results under a variety of conditions. … Haber did not establish that the initial soak alters the subject tiles. See TCA Br. at 27-28.

Xerox Corp. v. United States

2015 CIT 132 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 23, 2015

00474 Page 23 The Explanatory Notes define “data processing” as that which “consists in handling information of all kinds, in pre-established … Certainly heading 8443 covers “printing machinery used for printing,” and one might surmise that offset printers can provide excellent quality, but that part of the heading is only qualified Court No. 05-00474