Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp.

98 Citing cases

  1. Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co. v. United States

    745 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the "remedial nature" of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws

    Unfortunately, neither party has addressed the Supreme Court's clear seven-factor inquiry. Instead, the parties focused almost entirely on a three-factor test this court introduced in Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2003). Under this test, a statute only imposes a penalty when:

  2. GPX International Tire Corp v. United States

    893 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013)   Cited 7 times
    Recognizing that in the countervailing duty context AFA can be applied to the GOC even though it will collaterally impact a cooperating party

    The CAFC has outlined a three-part test for evaluating whether a law is effectively penal. Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2003). An otherwise remedial law becomes subject to the ex post facto clause if: “(1) the costs imposed are unrelated to the amount of actual harm suffered and are related more to the penalized party's conduct, (2) the proceeds from infractions are collected by the state, rather than paid to the individual harmed, and (3) the statute is meant to address a harm to the public, as opposed to remedying a harm to an individual.” Id.

  3. Royal United Corp. v. U.S.

    714 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)   Cited 3 times
    Noting Commerce's practice that every exporter from an NME country that is not particularly referenced in the review is in fact “covered by the results of the review” and is assessed the NME-wide rate

    ([Def.'s] Mot. to Dismiss 9.) Compare Notice of Initiation, 71 Fed. Reg. at 17,079 n. 6 with Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Requests for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 63 Fed. Reg. 58,009, 58,010 (Dep't Commerce Oct. 29, 1998)). See Huaiyin, 322 F.3d at 1377-78 (upholding the language used as sufficient to "satisf[y] controlling statutory and regulatory requirements").

  4. Committee for Fair Beam Imports v. U.S.

    477 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)   Cited 4 times

    STANDARD OF REVIEW When reviewing ITC determinations in sunset reviews "[t]he court shall hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion . . . found . . . to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law. . . ." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla." Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938). "Substantial evidence is 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Consol. Edison Co., 305 U.S. at 229, 59 S.Ct. 206). In determining the existence of substantial evidence, a reviewing court must consider "the record as a whole, including evidence that supports as well as evidence that 'fairly detracts from the substantiality of the evidence.'"Huaiyin, 322 F.3d at 1374 (quoting Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). DISCUSSION

  5. Shandong Huarong Machinery Company v. U.S.

    Consol. Court No. 03-00676, Slip Op. 07-3 (Ct. Int'l Trade Jan. 9, 2007)   Cited 1 times

    "Substantial evidence is `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). "Substantial evidence requires more than a mere scintilla, but is satisfied by something less than the weight of the evidence."

  6. Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S.

    342 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)   Cited 7 times
    In Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT ___, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (2004) (" Hontex II"), this court remanded Commerce's findings contained in the Final Results of Determination Pursuant to Court Remand (Dep't Commerce Aug. 12, 2003) (" First Remand Determination") for further analysis and explanation.

    "Substantial evidence is `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). It is "more than a mere scintilla." Consol. Edison, 305 U.S. at 229.

  7. Canadian Lumber v. U.S.

    517 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employment agreement reciting that the employee "agrees to and does hereby grant and assign" all rights in future inventions was an automatic assignment to employer by operation of law with no further act required on the part of the employer

    Before passage of the CDSOA, "the duties collected pursuant to the anti-dumping statute were deposited with the Treasury for general purposes." Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The CDSOA changed this by providing that "[d]uties assessed pursuant to a countervailing duty order, an antidumping duty order, or a finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921 shall be distributed on an annual basis under this section to the affected domestic producers for qualifying expenditures."

  8. Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co. v. United States

    884 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2012)   Cited 3 times

    After Sigma, Commerce has continued to apply this set of presumptions to all respondents subject to AD duty orders on merchandise from NME-designated countries, and Sigma has continued to be cited as controlling authority for judicial affirmation of Commerce's practice in this regard. See, e.g., Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1372, 1378 (Fed.Cir.2003); Transcom, 294 F.3d at 1373, 1381–82. Accordingly, it appears that the issue of Commerce's reliance upon a presumption of government control for respondents from NME-designated countries is settled (unless the Court of Appeals chooses to revisit it

  9. Andaman Seafood Co. v. United States

    768 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2011)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that the plaintiffs failed to show that Commerce had an established practice of relying on indirect selling expense ratios

    This inquiry must consider “the record as a whole, including evidence that supports as well as evidence that ‘fairly detracts from the substantiality of the evidence.’ ” Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2003) (quoting Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1984)). While contradictory evidence is considered, “the substantial evidence test does not require that there be an absence of evidence detracting from the agency's conclusion, nor is there an absence of substantial evidence simply because the reviewing court would have reached a different conclusion based on the same record.”

  10. China First Pencil Co. v. U.S.

    721 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)   Cited 3 times
    In China First Pencil Co. v. United States, 34 CIT ___, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (2010), the Court sustained-in-part and remanded-in-part Commerce's final determination in the 2006-2007 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China ("PRC").

    "Substantial evidence is `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Consol. Edison Co., 305 U.S. at 229). In determining the existence of substantial evidence, a reviewing Court must consider "the record as a whole, including evidence that supports as well as evidence that `fairly detracts from the substantiality of the evidence.'"