Case law

O'Toole v. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture

471 F. Supp. 2d 1323 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 23, 2007

Department of Labor.6 To qualify for these additional benefits, an applicant’s “net [fishing] income . . . for the most recent year” must be “less than the [applicant’s] net [fishing] income for the latest year in which … O’Toole seeks to add to the record does not clearly establish a decline in net fishing income from 2001 to 2002.”

Nitrogen Solutions Fair Trade Committee v. United States

358 F. Supp. 2d 1314 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 31, 2005

The Final Determination clearly indicates that the sales in question were excluded solely because of their incomparable quantities. See Views of the Commission at 21 n.101. … Here, the ITC plainly established that subject imports began to decline before the petition filing. Views of the Commission at 17-18.

Papierfabrik August Koehler AG v. United States

180 F. Supp. 3d 1211 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 6, 2016

The statute specifically requires compliance with information requests during the time periods established in the proceeding. See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677e, 1677m(d)(2), 1677m(e)(1). … Koehler maintains that Commerce “clearly imposed a punitive rate” rather than one that was designed “to provide an incentive to cooperate,” as it was required to do. Koehler’s Br. 55-56.

Fresh Garlic Producers Ass'n v. United States

2017 CIT 127 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 19, 2017

Cir. 2003) (“Whether on remand the Commission reopens the evidentiary record, while clearly within Consol. … Because the court concludes that substantial evidence supports Commerce’s determination that Ukraine offers higher quality data than Thailand, the court does not decide whether Thailand qualifies as a “significant producer

Skf USA Inc. v. United States

118 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 11, 2000

A zero-priced transaction does not qualify as a “sale” and, therefore, by definition cannot be included in Commerce’s [foreign market value] calculation. … Torrington maintains that the CAFC has clearly defined “direct” adjustments to price as those that “vary with the quantity sold, or that are related to a particular sale,” and Commerce

Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States

348 F. Supp. 3d 1261 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 17, 2018

Based on its explanations, Commerce clearly declined to consider-and made no mention of-this evidence. … After its review, Commerce found that the GOC did not have an effective system in place to qualify for a valid exception, based on the fact that the GOC failed to explain "how it determined the quantity of material ... consumed

United States v. Ford Motor Co.

387 F. Supp. 2d 1305 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 20, 2005

This letter is the only communication that could qualify as a prior disclosure. … QQ, which do not clearly indicate that they are part of the FN-36 dies. Ford claims that the functional panels were purchased under amendment 15 to the base tool order.

Fernandez v. Chao

27 Ct. Int'l Trade 1444 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 17, 2003

Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he first exception is clearly applicable. … In general, “[t]he United States is immune from suit except as it consents to be sued.” Former Employees of Quality Fabricating, Inc. v. United States Sec’y Labor, 27 CIT __, __, 259 F.

American Bearing Manufacturers Ass'n v. United States

350 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 16, 2004

Nor does the legislative history clearly favor a particular interpretation. … “An action by the ITC becomes an ‘agency practice’ when a uniform and established procedure exists that would lead a party, in the absence of notification of change, reasonably to expect adherence to the established practice

Former Employees of Rohm & Haas Co. v. Chao

27 Ct. Int'l Trade 116 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 23, 2003

Clearly, the plaintiffs would qualify for TAA benefits under the most recent iteration of the TAA statute, if it applied to this case. … As the Court of International Trade has already spoken to this issue, and Labor has offered no reasoned explanation why the CIT’s prior holdings are in error, the Court will not depart from established precedent.

DuPont Teijin Films v. United States

896 F. Supp. 2d 1302 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 7, 2013

The absence of a finding that a country is not economically comparable does not qualify as substantial evidence to show that the countries are in fact economically comparable. … As to the first issue, Commerce’s finding that JBF’s statement is the best available information is supported by the record because the other financial statements clearly state that a countervailable subsidy was received

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States

675 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 29, 2009

Moreover, Thai Union establishes that Commerce has “issue[d] revised Preliminary Results on several occasions that did not involve the mere correction of ministerial errors.” … Thai Union’s repeated response that it was using date of entry establishes a genuine misunderstanding concerning the reportable universe.23 See id.

United States v. Gateway Import Mgmt., Inc.

324 F. Supp. 3d 1328 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 3, 2018

Read as a whole, however, Plaintiff in its complaint and response clearly argues that Gateway and Good Times set up a scheme to avoid paying the proper amount of FET. See Compl. at ¶¶ 12– 23; Pl.’s Resp. at 7–15. … An importer of record qualifies as a “person.”

Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States

483 F. Supp. 3d 1321 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 3, 2020

Commerce’s final decisions in prior reviews do not “establish a policy” as Hung Vuong contends. … ECF 38-1, at 23.39 39Hung Vuong repeatedly mischaracterizes § 1677m(e) as qualifying the entirety of § 1677e(a).

PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. United States

764 F. Supp. 3d 1364 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 7, 2025

The relevant scope terms are unambiguous when they have a “single clearly defined or stated meaning.” Vandewater Int’l Inc. v. United States, No. 2023-1093, 2025 WL 719966, at *6 (Fed. Cir. … The Court acknowledges and agrees with Brooklyn Bedding’s argument that merely naming a product as a “topper” does not automatically qualify such Consol.

Footwear Distributors & Retailers of America v. United States

852 F. Supp. 1078 · United States Court of International Trade · May 10, 1994

domestic industry, or retards materially the establishment of a domestic industry. … domestic industry, or to retard materially the establishment of one.

Photonetics, Inc. v. United States

2009 CIT 117 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 15, 2009

The simple understanding of “laser” does not curtail the vast spectrum of qualifying devices. … Plaintiff further establishes that only a discrete subset of lasers function as instruments that measure or check light. See Lucas- Leclin Affidavit ¶ 11.

Kiswok Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. United States

28 Ct. Int'l Trade 774 · United States Court of International Trade · May 20, 2004

Exporters may also establish pre- shipment credit lines upon which they may draw as needed. … Credit line limits are established by commercial banks, based upon a company's creditworthiness and past export performance.

Russell Stadelman & Co. v. United States

83 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 21, 1999

The precise issue before the Court, then, is whether Plaintiffs imports of sumauma (Ceiba pentandra) plywood, faveira (Par-Jcia spp.) plywood, and mangue (T.rhois- oia) plywood qualify as “baboen.” … Plaintiff argues that the holding of “Neuman & Schwiers is inapplicable to this case where the [Explanatory Note Annex to Chapter 44] ... clearly provides for local names different from the pilot-name, the name appearing

Marubeni America Corp. v. United States

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 1249 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 3, 1995

While the tariff classification in Heading 7411 for “tubes and pipes” standing alone may be an eo nomine designation, clearly the term “threaded” in Note 1(h) is not an eo nomine classification. … It is true that neither party has claimed nor established a “commercial designation” for the term “threaded.”