Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In ASG Industries the court upheld the Treasury Department's negative countervailing duty determination on regional grants and in Melamine it reviewed Commerce's antidumping findings with deference to agency methodology. Melamine Chemicals, Inc. v. Unit… ↗ ASG Industries, Inc. v. United S… ↗
Reconsideration watch
Decisions resting on authority a higher court later overturned
This case concerns the proper tariff classification of imported indicator lights and lighted switch assemblies from Mexico. Customs classified the indicator lights under TSUS item 688.40 at 5.5% duty and the switches under 685.90 at 8.5%, while the importer sought lower rates under 685.70 and 688.40 respectively. The court upheld Customs' classifications, finding that the indicator lights did not qualify as visual signalling apparatus because they are used in ongoing operations rather than just temporary or emergency conditions, and that in the switch assemblies the switching function was primary rather than co-equal with the indicator light.
This case concerned the proper tariff classification of used weaving looms manufactured in Czechoslovakia, exported to England in 1968-69, operated there continuously for over a decade, and then sold in 1981 to an unrelated U.S. buyer. Customs assessed duty at the Column 2 rate of 40% ad valorem under TSUS item 670.14 on the ground that the goods were products of a Communist country imported indirectly into the United States. The court held that the merchandise qualified for the Column 1 rate of 6.4% because, after its sale and extended commercial use in England, it had become a bona fide part of English commerce and lost all connection to Czechoslovakia, thereby falling outside General Headnote 3(f). The decision rested on the stipulated facts showing the looms were installed and used for more than ten years rather than warehoused for later export, together with precedent interpreting "indirectly" to require more than mere transshipment through an intermediate country.
This case involved a challenge by a U.S. manufacturer to the tariff classification of imported acrylic resin sheets from Taiwan, which had been entered duty-free as flexible plastic sheets under TSUS item A771.41 pursuant to the Generalized System of Preferences. The plaintiff contended that the sheets were properly classifiable as other sheets of acrylic resin under TSUS item 771.45, subject to duty. After hearing testimony from industry experts on the material's rigidity, modulus of elasticity, and commercial treatment, along with review of prior precedent such as Sekisui Products Inc. v. United States, the court examined whether the sheets met the criteria for flexibility. The court concluded that the imported merchandise did not qualify as flexible sheets and was therefore dutiable under the acrylic resin provision.
This case involves a challenge by Melamine Chemicals, Inc. to the Department of Commerce's Final Negative Determination that melamine from the Netherlands was not sold in the U.S. at less than fair value, which reversed an earlier affirmative preliminary finding based on antidumping investigations initiated under the Tariff Act of 1930. The plaintiff contested Commerce's authority to amend its final determination, alleged due process violations from ex parte meetings and unserved documents, and argued that using the prior calendar quarter's exchange rate to calculate foreign market value violated statutory requirements for accurate pricing comparisons. The court examined the application of 19 C.F.R. § 353.56(b), legislative history of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, and provisions allowing flexibility in measuring exchange rate changes over a longer term to prevent distortions from short-term currency fluctuations. Core reasoning focused on whether the "90 day lag rule" for currency conversion was consistent with antidumping laws and regulations permitting adjustments in fair value investigations.
This case concerns plaintiffs' challenge to a customs ruling (TAA #10) regarding imported merchandise, seeking a preliminary injunction and judicial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (residual jurisdiction) and § 1581(h) (pre-importation review of rulings). Defendants moved to dissolve the injunction and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies such as protests and payment of duties. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under § 1581(i), as Congress did not intend that provision to allow litigants to bypass the traditional protest process under § 1581(a), per the Federal Circuit's Uniroyal decision. It further noted that § 1581(h) applies only to prospective imports and that the ruling at issue postdated the relevant entries, precluding injunctive relief without jurisdiction.
In Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, plaintiff Zenith sought a preliminary injunction under the Tariff Act to prevent the government from liquidating entries of Japanese television receivers subject to an antidumping duty order during the April 1979–March 1980 review period, arguing that liquidation would cause irreparable harm by mooting its challenge and allowing competitors to escape proper duties. The defendants countered that statutory provisions permit liquidation pending review and that subsequent annual reviews would preserve Zenith’s rights to contest the determinations. The court denied the motion, holding that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a concrete showing of immediate irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, public interest, and balance of hardships, and that Zenith had not met this burden beyond relying on the mere fact of liquidation itself. The opinion explains that Congress, in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c), made liquidation the general rule and injunctions the exception, not automatically available in every antidumping case.
