Primary Steel, Inc. v. U.S.

25 Citing cases

  1. Acciai Speciali Terni S.P.A. v. U.S.

    142 F. Supp. 2d 969 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2001)   Cited 17 times
    Noting that Commerce may change its position on an issue "providing that it explains the basis for its change and providing that the explanation is in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence."

    Substantial evidence is something more than a "mere scintilla," and must be enough evidence to reasonably support a conclusion. Primary Steel. Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 1080, 1085, 834 F. Supp. 1374, 1380 (1993); Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 10 CIT 399, 405, 636 F. Supp. 961, 966 (1986), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1987). IV ANALYSIS A Substantial Record Evidence Supports Commerce's Decision to Reject USR's Database and to Apply Total Facts Available to the Downstream Sales of USR. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) provides that if a party "withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority" or "provides such information but the information cannot be verified," Commerce "shall . . . use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title."

  2. Allied Tube Conduit Corp. v. U.S.

    127 F. Supp. 2d 207 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)   Cited 17 times
    Finding that "fair and equitable" calculation of antidumping duties is "crucial" to purpose of antidumping law

    Substantial evidence is more than a "mere scintilla" of evidence. Primary Steel, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 1080, 1085, 834 F. Supp. 1374, 1380 (1993). It consists of "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion".

  3. Rajinder Pipes Ltd. v. U.S.

    70 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, defendant points out that the Court has held "the burden of producing information to assist Commerce in determining whether a respondent is entitled to a duty drawback adjustment lies with the respondent, not Commerce." (COM at 20 (citing Primary Steel, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 1080, 1090, 834 F. Supp. 1374, 1383 (1993) (citation omitted)).) Defendant also argues Commerce properly rejected plaintiffs post-verification submissions because they were submitted after the deadline for the submissions established by regulation.

  4. Ferro Union, Inc. v. U.S.

    44 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that once it determined that certain family members controlled company Saha Thai and Company A, Commerce logically determined that these companies were affiliated pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(F) because of the family's control

    The court found Commerce's calculation of Thai Union's cost of production "rationally related to Thai's Union's zinc usage and coupling cost." Primary Steel, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 1080, 1087-88, 834 F. Supp. 1374, 1381 (1993).

  5. HORNOS ELECTRICOS DE VENEZUELA, S.A. (HEVENSA) v. U.S.

    Slip Op. 03-112 (Ct. Int'l Trade Aug. 29, 2003)   Cited 1 times

    "As with all favorable adjustments to normal value or export price, respondent bears the burden of establishing both prongs of the [duty drawback] test, and therefore, its entitlement to a duty drawback adjustment." Allied Tube Conduit Corp., 132 F. Supp.2d at 1093; see Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1034, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("Commerce has reasonably placed the burden to establish entitlement to adjustments on [respondent], the party seeking the adjustment and the party with access to the necessary information."); see also Primary Steel, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 1080, 1090, 834 F. Supp. 1374, 1383 (1993) ("The burden of creating a record from which the ITA could determine whether [respondent] was entitled to a duty drawback adjustment rested with [respondent], not Commerce."). While HEVENSA has established that it was exempt from paying import duties on inputs used to produce silicomanganese for export, it has failed to establish that it paid import duties on inputs used to produce silicomanganese sold in Venezuela.

  6. Anshan Iron Steel Company, Ltd., v. U.S.

    Cons. Court No: 02-00088, SLIP-OP 03 - 83 (Ct. Int'l Trade Jul. 16, 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that no language in the statute supports the proposition that Commerce must exclude from the calculation of normal value the factors of production of non-exporting subsidiaries that manufactured the subject merchandise during the period of investigation

    "Substantial evidence is something more than a `mere scintilla,' and must be enough reasonably to support a conclusion." Primary Steel, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 1080, 1085, 834 F. Supp. 1375, 1380 (1993) (citing Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 10 CIT 399, 405, 636 F. Supp. 961, 966 (1986), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). "As long as the agency's methodology and procedures are reasonable means of effectuating the statutory purpose, and there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency's conclusions, the court will not impose its own views as to the sufficiency of the agency's investigation or question the agency's methodology."

  7. CITIC Trading Co. v. United States

    Court No.: 01-00901, SLIP-OP 03 - 23 (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 4, 2003)   Cited 7 times

    "Substantial evidence is something more than a `mere scintilla,' and must be enough reasonably to support a conclusion." Primary Steel, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 1080, 1085, 834 F. Supp. 1374, 1380 (1993); Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 10 CIT 399, 405, 636 F. Supp. 961, 966 (1986), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "As long as the agency's methodology and procedures are reasonable means of effectuating the statutory purpose, and there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency's conclusions, the court will not impose its own views as to the sufficiency of the agency's investigation or question the agency's methodology."

  8. Former Emp. of Barry Callebaut v. Herman

    240 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)   Cited 8 times
    Instructing the Labor Department to certify workers for TAA and NAFTA-TAA benefits, holding that "[the Department of] Labor's inadequate efforts have failed to produce a determination that meets minimum legal standards. Having failed to conduct an adequate investigation after four opportunities, [the Department of] Labor will not receive another."

    Substantial evidence is something more than a "mere scintilla," and must be enough evidence to reasonably support a conclusion. Primary Steel, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 1080, 1085, 834 F. Supp. 1374, 1380 (1993); Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 10 CIT 399, 405, 636 F. Supp. 961, 966 (1986), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court in Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938), stated that language within administrative statutes which relax the rules of evidence applicable to U.S. district courts is designed to "free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order."

  9. Tung Mung Development Co. v. United States

    219 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)   Cited 9 times

    Substantial evidence is something more than a "mere scintilla," and must be enough evidence to reasonably support a conclusion. Primary Steel, Inc. v. United States, 17 C.I.T. 1080, 1085, 834 F. Supp. 1374, 1380 (1993); Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 10 C.I.T. 399, 405, 636 F. Supp. 961, 966 (1986), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A determination as to whether the agency's interpretation of the statute is in accordance with law requires of the court to "carefully investigate the matter to determine whether Congress's purpose and intent on the question at issue is judicially ascertainable."

  10. Alloy Piping Products, Inc. v. U.S.

    201 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)   Cited 7 times
    Recognizing the "tension between finality and correct result" and denying relief where party requested correction after Final Results had issued

    The substantial evidence standard applies to Commerce's factual findings. This standard requires more than a "mere scintilla" of evidence, Primary Steel, Inc. v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1374, 1380 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993), and consists of "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).