Case law

Nsk Corp. v. United States

821 F. Supp. 2d 1349 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 6, 2012

Plaintiff claims that it unlawfully was denied affected domestic producer (“ADP”) status, which would have qualified it to receive distributions for fiscal years 2005-2007 under the CDSOA. … United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008), SKF USA II, 556 F.3d at 1348, and 28 U.S.C. § 2636(i), we conclude that § 2636(i) constitutes a limitation on the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity and that the statute of limitations

Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States

391 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 23, 2005

Consequently, Commerce establishes a single rate for all state-controlled companies. … This principle is clearly broad enough to apply when Commerce requests other parties to act on its behalf.

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States

2023 CIT 182 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 18, 2023

The government responds that the South Korean statute and regulations do “establish criteria that ex- pressly limit[ ] which entities qualify for the additional allocation by setting thresholds that they must meet to qualify … or industry does or does not qualify?

General Motors Corp. v. United States

770 F. Supp. 641 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 23, 1991

Thus, in order to qualify for item 807.00, TSUS, allowances, a party must satisfy each of the aforementioned conditions. Samsonite Corp. v. … The finish painting operations performed abroad are, by the criteria established by caselaw, minor and clearly subordinate to the assembly process.

Ad Hoc Utilities Group v. United States

625 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 15, 2009

Because the utility companies individually do not each qualify either as producers or importers of the subject uranium and because the companies as a group do not qualify as a trade or business association a majority … AHUG Members Have Not Established Standing as “Importers” which are producers, exporters, or importers of such merchandise.”

Fakhri v. United States

507 F. Supp. 2d 1305 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 20, 2007

The Federal Circuit has clearly stated its position on this issue. … Therefore, unclean hands is clearly available to bar any such equitable relief it seeks.

Desert Glory, Ltd. v. United States

368 F. Supp. 2d 1334 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 27, 2005

Where – as here – a waiver of sovereign immunity is at issue, the language of the statute must be strictly construed, and any ambiguities must be resolved in favor of immunity. See United States v. … Cir. 1998) (“Any statute which creates a waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed in favor of the Government.”). II.

Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States Department of Commerce

201 F. Supp. 2d 1351 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 30, 2002

In other words, “the statement contained in the Notice of Initiation clearly advised [Plaintiffs] that if any of the listed exporters did not qualify for a separate rate, all of the exporters of crawfish tail meat from … not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters . . . who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review . . . .”

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States

659 F. Supp. 3d 1327 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 29, 2023

Id., art. 14. 10 Hyundai Steel qualified for the full allocation. Hyundai Steel’s NSA Resp., Ex. NSA-1 at 2. … Commerce found that the AAGEP and the Enforcement Decree “establish criteria” that “result in an express statutory limitation on which industries qualify for the additional allocation by setting thresholds that industries

Hartford Fire Insurance v. United States

918 F. Supp. 2d 1376 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 27, 2013

Cir. 2011) (noting that a clear error of judgment occurs when an action is “arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable”). … However, it contends that 19 U.S.C. § 1623(a) empowers Customs to require additional security when circumstances establish that a bond is insufficient. 19 U.S.C. § 1623(a) states that when [a] bond or

AK Steel Corp. v. United States

281 F. Supp. 2d 1318 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 3, 2003

A claim for an unqualified right to commit an admittedly illegal act and then invoke a statute to assert immunity in such illegality is breathtaking for its chutzpah. … L. 106-387, 19 U.S.C. § 1675c, pursuant to which domestic producers with qualifying expenditures for a particular year may, for the time being, obtain a share of the antidumping duties collected by Customs for that year

Trade Associates Group, Ltd. v. United States

961 F. Supp. 2d 1306 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 31, 2014

fall” within an exception Commerce established for “figurine” candles. … such exclusions because the plain language of the Order clearly encompasses those candle shapes.

Sunburst Farms, Inc. v. United States

9 Ct. Int'l Trade 512 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 10, 1985

. §§2461-65 (1982 & West Supp. 1985), the President is authorized to establish a system of tariff preferences to aid the economic development of designated "beneficiary developing countries.” … Pursuant to section 501 of the Act, the President is authorized to grant duty-free treatment for eligible articles from qualified countries. 19 U.S.C. § 2461 .

All Channel Products v. United States

787 F. Supp. 1457 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 23, 1992

Defendant correctly posits that the plain language of the statute mandates that a TV appraisement be based on the “total payment” exclusive only of the specified costs, charges and expenses qualifying as “incident to the … Only in those situations where it would clearly be impossible to ship merchandise on a through bill of lading (e.g., shipments via the seller’s own conveyance) will other documentation satisfactory to the district director

Brecoflex Co., LLC v. United States

44 F. Supp. 2d 225 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 19, 1999

No case law is cited for this prop- osition, but there is legionary precedent that waiver of sover- eign immunity is always to be strictly construed. E.g., Lehman v. … Clearly, the plaintiff could have done that5 but chose not to, which means that this court as a matter of law did not become 4 Miller & Co. v.

Delphi Petroleum, Inc. v. United States

717 F. Supp. 2d 1340 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 9, 2010

Although the United States is generally immune from suit, EAJA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for purposes of allowing a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees and expenses under certain circumstances … Although Delphi would have been entitled to drawback of its HMT and MPF if its claims were timely filed, Delphi was not clearly entitled to a 19 U.S.C. § 1313(r)(1) statutory extension of the time to file.

Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States

34 Ct. Int'l Trade 512 · United States Court of International Trade · May 4, 2010

The plaintiffs argue that these examples clearly illustrate “targeted dumping” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(B)(i), but would not be classified as such under Commerce’s test. (Id.) … Furthermore, plaintiff has done nothing to attempt to establish that on this record the five percent requirement is unreasonably high.

Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. United States

484 F. Supp. 2d 1314 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 28, 2007

warranty repair cost, (17) qualifying warranty overhead cost, (18) total qualifying warranty cost. … Volkswagen has already successfully established that it contracted for “defect-free” merchandise.

Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Am. v. United States

853 F. Supp. 2d 1300 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 12, 2012

This allegation is insufficient to establish Nan Ya’s eligibility for CDSOA benefits. … Neither of these actions qualified Nan Ya as an ADP.

Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States

341 F. Supp. 2d 1272 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 21, 2004

To be classified in heading 3004, qualifying medicaments must be "put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale". … Neither the record nor the reference to 100 percent of the daily value of vitamin C establishes such synonymity.