The case concerned whether export refunds received by a UK manufacturer under the European Economic Community's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for sugar used in confectionary products could be deducted from the cost of materials when calculating statutory cost of production for U.S. customs appraisal under former 19 U.S.C. § 1402(f). The importer sought to reduce dutiable value by the amount of the rebates, while Customs disallowed the deduction and the government counterclaimed that the payments constituted profit. The court held that the rebates could not be subtracted from the cost of materials or added as profit, because the statute fixes material costs at a specific pre-export time based on purchase prices in the ordinary course of business, and the CAP payments were separate governmental grants or subsidies received or receivable only upon export. Drawing on precedent involving drawback refunds, the court reasoned that post-manufacture refunds or subsidies fall outside the statutory elements and do not alter the appraised cost of production.
This case concerns a challenge by Kyowa Gas Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. to a determination by the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA) that its product Kyowaglas-XA falls within the scope of a 1976 antidumping finding on acrylic sheet from Japan, making it subject to duties under section 751 of the Tariff Act. The ITA concluded that the product was covered based on descriptions in the original petition and related materials without applying its usual additional criteria for scope clarification, such as physical characteristics, uses, purchaser expectations, and channels of trade. Kyowa argued that the ITA improperly expanded the finding to a new patented product without adequate analysis. The court held that in a section 1675(a) review, the ITA may clarify but not modify the scope of a prior finding, and its determination must be supported by substantial evidence from the record. Because the ITA provided no specific findings applying the relevant criteria to Kyowaglas-XA, the court remanded the matter for the ITA to consider all relevant evidence and make proper determinations.
This case concerned challenges to federal trade agency determinations that sorbitol from France was being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value and was causing material injury to domestic industries. Roquette contested the International Trade Administration's denial of an adjustment to U.S. purchase price for export refunds received on imported corn used in production, arguing the adjustment was required under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(B), and also challenged the International Trade Commission's injury findings; intervenor Pfizer contested the negative injury finding for liquid sorbitol. On remand from an earlier court order, the ITC obtained additional data and found material injury to the crystalline sorbitol industry but none to the liquid sorbitol industry. The court upheld the ITA's refusal to grant the adjustment because the EC import levies and export refunds were not directly linked or dependent on one another, and it reviewed the ITC's product-specific injury analysis based on the administrative record.
The case involved Freeport Minerals challenging the International Trade Administration's revocation of a 1973 antidumping duty order on elemental sulphur from Canada produced by Chevron, following an administrative review under 19 U.S.C. § 1675. The court dismissed the action, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the suit was untimely under the review provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 1516a and because a prior judgment in Chevron Standard Ltd. v. United States had already affirmed the revocation after remand. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's challenge constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a final court order, as res judicata bars relitigation of matters that were or could have been raised in the earlier proceeding.
The case involved the United States seeking to collect $13,700 in liquidated damages from a surety bond issued by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and principal Keith W. Atkinson for imported automobiles that were not redelivered to customs custody after a demand. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against St. Paul, awarding the full amount plus post-judgment interest, while denying St. Paul's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing its cross-claim against Atkinson for lack of jurisdiction. The decision rested on the finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact, that St. Paul had waived affirmative defenses such as regulatory noncompliance and statute of limitations by failing to plead them in its answer, and that the undisputed facts entitled the plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law.
The case involved a dispute over whether a plaintiff timely filed a summons in the Court of International Trade to contest the U.S. Customs Service's denial of a protest regarding customs duties. The plaintiff argued that it never received notice of the denial, which was mailed on September 10, 1979, and filed the summons 256 days later on May 23, 1980. The defendant moved to dismiss the protest from the action for exceeding the 180-day statutory limit under 28 U.S.C. § 2636(a). The court held that the summons was timely because evidence of non-receipt rebutted the presumption of mailing, and the defendant's affidavit failed to prove actual mailing due to inconsistencies. Therefore, the defendant's motion to sever and dismiss was denied.
