Case law

Dorbest Ltd. v. United States

547 F. Supp. 2d 1321 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 27, 2008

its argument that Commerce’s determination was unreasonable, Dorbest presents its analysis showing that there is a relationship between company size (as measured by cost of manufacture 31 ) and SG & A ratio, which is more clearly … United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed.Cir.l997)(deciding under the 1988 version of the antidumping law that “[ijnformation that has conclusively been determined to be inaccurate does not qualify as the ‘best information

Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. United States

2014 CIT 96 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 18, 2014

In addition, in its amended motions, Rockwell makes a reasonable (although not clearly compelling) Rockwell’s research, analysis, and briefing of the caselaw are equally unimpressive. … The deadlines that are established in court rules and court orders must mean something.

Timken Co. v. United States

166 F. Supp. 2d 608 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 9, 2001

The legislative history to this section clearly demonstrates that Commerce's knowledge test was anticipated by Congress and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. … few shipments establishes the suppliers' knowledge of the export destination. See Final Results, 62 Fed. Reg. at 61,291-92.

Fujitsu General America, Inc. v. United States

110 F. Supp. 2d 1061 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 15, 2000

(citing New Zealand Lamb, 40 F.3d at 382).9 If timely under § 1514(c)(1), Fujitsu’s deemed liquidation claim would qualify as an amendment to protests 2704-98-100059 and 3001-98-100026. … Above, we established that Fujitsu could have protested Customs’ purported liquidations under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(5). Such Consol. Ct.

Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United States

219 F. Supp. 3d 1368 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 31, 2017

CDoc 283, PDoc 377 at 4, with CDoc 275, PDoc 356, at 7 (establishing average weight of Wei-hai’s cores). … DSMC argues that this qualified Trigger as a captive supplier, which inherently distorts Trigger’s financial performance.

Belimo Automation A.G. v. United States

2013 CIT 144 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 26, 2013

Warner- Lambert, 316 F.3d at 1356 (“[I]t is a rule of law well established that the definite article ‘the’ particularizes the subject which it precedes. … However, the subject imports do not meet the criteria for EN 9032(a) or (b) and do not qualify as “oven draft regulators.”

VWP of America, Inc. v. United States

163 F. Supp. 2d 645 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 29, 2001

manufacturer of the fabrics, Les Lainages Victor Ltée (a/k/a 1 “Melton” is “fabric with all[ ]wool or cotton warp and woolen weft; the face is napped carefully to raise the nap straight up, showing the weave clearly … Levy merchandise was “identical” or “similar” to the VWPC-VWPA merchandise,24 and (3) whether the VWPC-VWPA transaction value “closely approximated” the Cookshiretex-Levy transactions. 23 Entities may “qualify

Former Employees of Invista, S.A.R.L. v. U.S. Secretary of Labor

714 F. Supp. 2d 1320 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 28, 2010

But surely the Government does not contend that the Labor Department’s “sound discretion” is unbounded, and that the agency’s investigations are immune from judicial review. … As such, the Government cannot rely on that claim to establish that its litigation position here was substantially justified.

Container Store v. United States

145 F. Supp. 3d 1331 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 21, 2016

Defendant alternatively argues that, even if a prior decision is binding on the Court, the United States is entitled to submit evidence that the decision was clearly erroneous. (See id. at 4, 7-8.) B. … The subject merchandise also qualifies as “mountings, fittings and similar articles suitable for furniture” applying the common commercial definitions.

National Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker

636 F. Supp. 921 · United States Court of International Trade · May 22, 1986

What the Brazilians are interested in is finding some formula to export a product of alcohol, but which is different enough to qualify for a lower tariff rate. … Clearly, those notifications were not ruling letters.

Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States

219 F. Supp. 3d 1326 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 23, 2017

The reasonableness of this methodology does not depend on the presence of a pattern established for every sale, contrary to PT’s argument. See PT Br. 18-25. … A determination by Commerce is an abuse of discretion if it is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful, is based on an erroneous conclusion of law, rests on clearly erroneous fact findings, or follows from a record that

Thai Pineapple Public Co. v. United States

20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1312 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 8, 1996

It is a rare opinion that could not be more clearly written. The court, however, declines to dismiss the bulk of IPSCO III as simply loose language. The court must assume that IPSCO III means what it says. … While describing this flaw as an error in Commerce’s methodology, petitioners nevertheless asserted that the result was “unintentional,” and for that reason qualified as a clerical or ministerial error that could be corrected

Former Employees of BMC Software, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor

454 F. Supp. 2d 1306 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 31, 2006

Moreover, “NAICS was designed . . . in such as way as to allow business establishments to self-code.” Id. … See “Commerce Establishes Petition Counseling Unit,” BNA Int’l Trade Reporter, Sept. 30, 2004, at 1611.

Samsung International, Inc. v. United States

887 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 21, 2012

The NAFTA 17 Defendant argues that the plain language of the heading is sufficient to establish the meaning of FPSA. … As discussed above it was clearly referring to the terminology used by the entire display industry.”).18 18 In determining the proper meaning of a tariff heading, the court considers expert opinions,

Sgl Carbon LLC v. United States

819 F. Supp. 2d 1352 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 22, 2012

Commerce is entitled to “substantial discretion in determining what types of unintentional or inadvertent errors qualify . . . [as] ‘ministerial.’” See Kaiyuan Group Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT 698, 723, 343 F. … Consistent with Congress’ intent, the statute and regulations clearly contemplate authorizing Commerce to correct the ministerial errors and publish amended final results in the circumstances of this case.

Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States

350 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 24, 2004

Commerce argues that while the antidumping duty statute does not specifically use the term “surrogate country,” the statute clearly contemplates that the country selected cannot be the one … The qualifier “normally,” however, provides Commerce with the discretionary power to determine if a surrogate country is necessary.

CPC International, Inc. v. United States

971 F. Supp. 574 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 14, 1997

Specifically, Customs ruled that under the interim regulations, CPC’s retail containers of “Skippy” peanut butter do not qualify for the exception from marking under 19 C.F.R. § 134.35 (b) and the referenced NAFTA Marking … fillets would be analogous to a processing of peanuts into slurry, concededly a substantial transformation of the peanuts, but not simply the processing of slurry into finished peanut butter. 7 The latter processing is clearly

United States v. Rodrigue

645 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 1, 2009

And it is the plaintiff who must “present[] facts which clearly justify [the] applicability” of such a statute. Robinson v. … But, clearly, the Government’s obligation of “diligent search and inquiry” required it to do something more than it did. See, e.g., Prudential Ins.

Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States

2023 CIT 132 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 14, 2023

Whether Shanghai Tainai’s claim was true as a factual matter was not established because Commerce failed to consider the question. See Oral Arg. … The Government argues that this language “clearly implies that Section 301 duties are intended to be imposed in addition to other duties.” Def.’s Supp. Br. at 8, ECF No. 53.

Midwest of Cannon Falls Inc. v. United States

20 Ct. Int'l Trade 123 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 18, 1996

In the HTSUS, Congress deleted the qualifier “tree.” 2 Customs is asking this Court to read the term “tree” back into the statute. The Court declines to do so. … Congressional intent is demonstrated more clearly by changing Chapter 95, rather than its failure to modify all cross-references to it in the HTSUS.