Peer Bearing Co. v. United States

4 Citing cases

  1. Parkdale Intern. v. U.S.

    429 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006)   Cited 4 times

    Parkdale's claim that it would not get a satisfactory dumping margin upon review does not merit the court's consideration because 19 U.S.C. § 1677e contemplates such results. See, e.g., Peer Bearing Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 799, 805-06, 800 F. Supp. 959, 965 (1992) (finding that when resellers choose uncooperative suppliers that are under dumping order, it is irrelevant that such resellers are cooperative in their questionnaire responses). Furthermore, Russel withdrew from the review before its completion and simply does not serve as an example of Parkdale's "false choice" argument.

  2. LG Semicon Co. v. United States

    Court No. 98-10-03076, Slip Op. 99-144 (Ct. Int'l Trade Dec. 30, 1999)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that a respondent must report a sale as to the United States rather than as a home-market sale where the respondent knew at the time of sale to a buyer located in the home market that the subject merchandise would be resold to the United States

    The Court acknowledges that the Yue Pak Court cites two cases that do not seem to explicitly support this proposition. See Yue Pak, 20 CIT 498 (citing Sandvik AB v. U.S., 13 CIT 738, 721 F. Supp. 1322, aff'd, 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Peer Bearing Co. v. U.S., 16 CIT 799, 803-804, 800 F. Supp. 959, 964 (1992)); Pls.' Br., at 24. Nonetheless, the Court defers to the Yue Pak court's decision, and the Federal Circuit's affirmation thereof, and finds that the cases cited at least tangentially support the proposition.

  3. NSK Ltd. v. United States

    969 F. Supp. 34 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997)   Cited 20 times
    Upholding change in methodology for reallocating U.S. selling expenses in fourth administrative review based on rationale that new methodology provides a value that is not subject to potential manipulation by parties despite fact that Commerce used different methodology in earlier reviews

    In addition, this Court has previously upheld Commerce's application of the knowledge test. See Peer Bearing Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 799, 803-04, 800 F. Supp. 959, 963-64 (1992).

  4. Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. v. U.S., (1996)

    947 F. Supp. 525 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996)   Cited 13 times
    Upholding the use of the knowledge test to calculate foreign market value of plaintiff's exports

    The Court dismissed the complaint stating, "Commerce is afforded considerable deference in determining what constitutes best information. . . . [W]hen resellers choose to use uncooperative suppliers that are under a dumping order, it is irrelevant that such resellers are cooperative in their questionnaire responses." (relying on Peer Bearing Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 799, 800 F. Supp. 959 (1992)). "[T]he administering authority . . . shall, whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable to produce information requested in a timely manner and in the form required, . . . use the best information otherwise available."