Case Law Index International Agricultural Trade
January 1, 2002 – December 22, 2025
This index provides a comprehensive though not necessarily exhaustive compilation of reported and unreported federal and state court decisions involving international agricultural trade that were decided between the dates listed above. The cases are listed in reverse chronological order. The “Text” link goes to the freely available Google Scholar text of the opinion. These listings are for educational purposes only and are not a substitute for legal counsel.
SUPREME COURT
Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 476 (U.S. 2005) (“farm winery” license) Text
U.S. COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Sch. Specialty, LLC v. United States, No. 24-00098 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 31, 2025) (Custom’s ruling did not fairly detract from Commerce’s decision, and the Department did not err by failing to further address it) Text
Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, No. 23-00264, (Ct. Int’l Trade July 21, 2025) (Commerce’s selection of Romania as the primary surrogate country is sustained) Text
United States v. Rayson Glob., Inc., No. 23-00201 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 18, 2025) (Court ordered defendants to pay all duties, taxes, and fees that remain unpaid on the liquidated entries) Text
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-00133 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 16, 2025) (The court sustained commerce’s redetermination) Text
Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, No. 22-00092 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 10, 2025) (Substantial evidence supports the Department’s finding that using the simple average of NTSF’s zero margin and East Sea’s adverse-inference rate reasonably reflects economic reality) Text
Kingtom Aluminio S.r.L. v. United States, No. 22-00072 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 9, 2025) (remand results were sustained) Text
United States v. Aegis Sec. Ins. Co., No. 22-00327 (Ct. Int’l Trade June 11, 2025) (court concluded that the government may not recover on bond) Text
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (operation of the Challenged Tariff Orders were permanently enjoined) Text
Barnes v. United States, No. 25-00043 (Ct. Int’l Trade May 23, 2025) (Plaintiff’s injuries alleged as a consumer were speculative and not particularized, thus were unfit for standing) Text
Solar Energy Indus. Ass’n v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1368 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (allowing reliquidation was not warranted) Text
Pay Less Here, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 778 F. Supp. 3d 1360 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (importer lacked statutory standing to bring action) Text
Under the Weather, LLC v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 3d 1373 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (amendment was not warranted due to importer’s undue delay) Text
Trina Solar Co. v. United States, 767 F. Supp. 3d 1377 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (producer’s antidumping duties could be offset by subsidies from three programs, but not three remaining programs) Text
Eteros Techs. USA, Inc. v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 3d 1358 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (good cause did exist for expedited 60-day briefing schedule) Text
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Lutnick, 774 F. Supp. 3d 1348 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (Court retained jurisdiction to enforce stipulated settlement agreement, and correction of stipulation to include “so-ordered” was warranted) Text
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 3d 1340 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (CIT held that substantial evidence supported Commerce’s determination that domestic producer did not satisfy criteria for opening countervailable duty investigation) Text
Your Standing Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 755 F. Supp. 3d 1373 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (substantial evidence supported choice of surrogate financial statements) Text
Apiario Diamane Comercial Exportadora Ltda v. United States, 755 F. Supp. 3d 1329 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (Department’s decision in the Remand Redetermination was supported by substantial evidence and adequately explained) Text
Prysmian Cables & Sys. USA, LLC v. United States, 756 F. Supp. 3d 1337 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (APA provision governing failure to act did not apply to agency denials) Text
United States v. Rayson Glob., 747 F. Supp. 3d 1376 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (United States was not entitled to default judgment and CIT would not consider United States’ claim for lost revenue) Text
BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 750 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (adverse inference was not warranted in determining program was not “de facto specific”) Text
Dexter Distribution Grp. LLC v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1369 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (impact of unliquidated entries on importer’s customs bond did not constitute “changed circumstance” that warranted modifying injunction) Text
Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. United States, 741 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (Commerce’s determination was remanded for further proceedings) Text
California Steel Indus., Inc. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (producer did not carry its burden to justify restricting full public access to Slip Opinion 24-127) Text
Tenaris Bay City, Inc. v. United States, 745 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (substantial evidence supported Department’s remand redetermination that petition satisfied the statutory requirement that petition exhibit support from domestic supporters) Text
Bioparques de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 745 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (motion to intervene was granted) Text
Chae v. United States, 736 F. Supp. 3d 1364 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (claim preclusion barred applicant’s action) Text
Retractable Techs., Inc. v. United States, 739 F. Supp. 3d 1330 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm should an injunction against collection of the Section 301 Tariffs not issue) Text
Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, 736 F. Supp. 3d 1334 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (exporter did not comply with the administrative-exhaustion requirement with respect to its ministerial-error allegation, which was untimely, and exporter did not show that the question-of-law exception to administrative exhaustion applied with respect to its untimely ministerial-error allegation) Text
United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, 731 F. Supp. 3d 1377 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CIT held that certifying interlocutory appeal would not materially advance termination of litigation) Text
InterGlobal Forest LLC v. United States, 736 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (government’s position was substantially justified under EAJA) Text
Zhejiang Amerisun Tech. Co. v. United States, 729 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (exporter’s engine was not covered by scope of orders) Text
Fusong Jinlong Wooden Grp. Co. v. United States, 732 F. Supp. 3d 1333 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (substantial evidence supported revised separate antidumping duty rate, and reversed challenges to separate rate were moot) Text
United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, 728 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (Court rule governing service of individual in foreign country applies to service on foreign-located defendant through its United States counsel) Text
Meihua Grp. Int’l Trading (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. United States, 717 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (recalculation of dumping rate and separate rate was consistent with remand orders and collapsing analysis and rescinding of administrative review were consistent with remand orders) Text
Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States, 719 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (Customs’ liquidation of entries was ministerial decision outside protest jurisdiction) Text
Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, 719 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (program subsidy could not be used in countervailing duty rate imposed on customers for whom Commerce verified non-use of program, but could be used on customers whom Commerce had not verified non-use of program) Text
Seko Customs Brokerage, Inc. v. United States, 719 F. Supp. 3d 1279 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CIT held that broker would not suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief) Text
H&E Home, Inc. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 3d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CBP did not act arbitrarily when it did not apply adverse inferences against importers for failing to resubmit public summaries of confidential documents) Text
Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Comm. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 3d 1332 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (adverse interference was not warranted, and substantial evidence supported non-evasion determination) Text
Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd. v. United States, 708 F. Supp. 3d 1395 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (substantial evidence supported redetermination that methodology did not impose double remedy) Text
Greentech Energy Sols., Inc. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (claim that antidumping duty fine was excessive and violated Eighth Amendment was not ripe) Text
United States v. Aegis Sec. Ins. Co., 703 F. Supp. 3d 1404 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (government forfeited argument that it could recover because any breach of implied reasonable time requirement was not material) Text
Archroma U.S., Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Com., 703 F. Supp. 3d 1396 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (court granted motion for judgment on the agency record and enjoined the Department to accept the company’s substantive responses) Text
BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 3d 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CIT held that investigation and analysis of de facto specificity of subsidy program was required) Text
Columbia Aluminum Prods., LLC v. United States, 701 F. Supp. 3d 1363 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CBP was not required to immediately terminate interim measures upon a negative finding of evasion, and importer was not entitled to order of immediate liquidation of import entries) Text
Assan Aluminyum Sanayi v. Ticaret A.S., 701 F. Supp. 3d 1321 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (Department’s application of a duty drawback adjustment to all of exporter’s United States sales of merchandise at issue when determining foreign exporter’s dumping margin, would be remanded for a redetermination) Text
Blue Sky Color of Imagination, LLC v. United States, 698 F. Supp. 3d 1243 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (importer’s weekly and monthly planner products were classifiable under HTSUS heading for diaries and address books) Text
Far E. Am., Inc. v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (entry of judgment sustaining CBP’s negative evasion determination was proper) Text
Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 3d 1364 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (government’s new comparability findings constituted significant change in factual conditions and law that warranted dissolving injunction) Text
Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 3d 1361 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CIT held that consolidation of actions was not warranted) Text
Diamond Tools Tech. LLC v. United States, 686 F. Supp. 3d 1374, 1376 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (Customs’ position was substantially justified, barring attorney fee award) Text
Norca Indus. Co., LLC v. United States, 680 F. Supp. 3d 1343 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (substantial evidence supported negative evasion determination) Text
Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, 680 F. Supp. 3d 1323 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (remand was not warranted) Text
SGS Sports Inc. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 3d 1369 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CIT held that entries were entitled to duty-free treatment under HTSUS) Text
GoPro, Inc. v. United States, 673 F. Supp. 3d 1349 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (the Court concluded that the correct classification for the subject camera housings is as “parts” under Heading 8529) Text
Cambria Co. LLC v. United States, 673 F. Supp. 3d 1340 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (court denied importer’s motion for statutory injunction) Text
Kumar Indus. v. United States, 665 F. Supp. 3d 1355 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (exporter failed to cooperate to best of its ability in providing affiliate information) Text
AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 666 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (the Court entered partial judgment pursuant to USCIT Rule 54(b)) Text
Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. United States, 662 F. Supp. 3d 1371, 1377 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (Court entered judgment sustaining the Remand Redetermination) Text
Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 658 F. Supp. 3d 1331, 1332 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (Court remanded after finding Commerce’s decision was contrary to law)
SMA Surfaces, Inc. v. United States, 658 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (Commerce’s results were supported by substantial evidence and compliant with the court’s remand order) Text
OCP S.A. v. United States, 658 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (Court held that substantial evidence did not support Commission’s findings) Text
Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane v. Ulasim Sanayi A.S., 654 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (Commerce reasonably rejected exporter’s requests for a duty drawback adjustment and an inflation adjustment) Text
Far E. Am., Inc. v. United States, 654 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (orders’ scope excluded plywood produced in Vietnam using Chinese two-ply panels.) Text
Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 651 F. Supp. 3d 1321 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (Court sustained Commerce’s determinations regarding countervailing benefits) Text
Wheatland Tube v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 3d 1379 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (remand was required due to Commerce’s failure to comply with statutory obligations in response to deficient submissions.) Text
Diamond Tools Tech. LLC v. United States, 647 F. Supp. 3d 1383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (importer did not engage in evasion of antidumping duty order) Text
Nucor Tubular Prods. Inc. v. United States, 648 F. Supp. 3d 1368, 1370 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (the results of Commerce’s Remand Redetermination with regard to Prolamsa were supported by substantial evidence, in accordance with the law, and complied with the Court’s remand order) Text
NEXTEEL Co. v. United States, 648 F. Supp. 3d 1362, 1363 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (In addition to substantial evidence, the results of an antidumping redetermination pursuant to remand from the Court of International Trade and are also reviewed for compliance with the court’s remand order.) Text
Danyang Weiwang Tools Mfg. Co. v. United States, 645 F. Supp. 3d 1380, 1381 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (Court found that the Remand Results were supported by substantial evidence, complied with the Court’s remand order, and were therefore sustained.) Text
KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 648 F. Supp. 3d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (in order to depart from Department of Commerce’s routine practice in countervailing duty proceedings, Commerce must provide a reasonable explanation.) Text
Maple Leaf Mktg., Inc. v. United States, 639 F. Supp. 3d 1363 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (statutory scheme governing classification and collection of duties on imported goods did not authorize the United States to assert a counterclaim challenging Customs and Border Protection’s classification of boronized steel tubing) Text
Nature’s Touch Frozen Foods (W.) Inc. v. United States, 639 F. Supp. 3d 1287 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (importer’s products were not eligible for preferential duty treatment) Text
China Manufacturers All., LLC v. United States, 639 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (Department’s determination that exporter was among unitary group of exporters subject to country-wide non-market economy entity rate had not been adjudicated by Court of International Trade) Text
BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 639 F. Supp. 3d 1237 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (commerce was not required to incorporate offsets for costs of compliance with German tax programs connected with climate change measures as part of calculating subsidy rates) Text
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enf’t Comm. v. United States, 632 F. Supp. 3d 1369 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (court held that Office of Regulations and Rulings (ORR) determination that substantial evidence supported a finding of non-evasion was reasonable.) Text
Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi v. Ticaret A.S., 633 F. Supp. 3d 1276 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (A prior administrative determination by Department of Commerce is not legally binding on other countervailing duty (CVD) reviews before court of international trade). Text
La Molisana S.P.A. v. United States, 633 F.Supp.3d 1266 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (final results of the Dept. of Commerce’s twenty-third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy are sustained) Text
Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, 611 F.Supp.3d 1406 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (Government of New Zealand did not make the requisite showing of changed circumstances, so the court denied the motion to modify) Text
Virtus Nutrition LLC v. United States, 606 F.Supp.3d 1360 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (court concluded it was proper within the meaning of USCIT Rule 41(a)(2) to dismiss the instant action without including in the court’s order plaintiff’s proposed stipulation regarding the Temporary Storage Agreement) Text
Z.A. Sea Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 606 F.Supp.3d 1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (court sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination) Text
Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, 606 F.Supp.3d 1286 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (granted defendant’s motion to dismiss claim 1 because it falls outside the purview of the APA § 706(1); granted plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Government to ban the importation of all fish and fish products from New Zealand’s commercial gillnet and trawl fisheries within the Maui dolphin’s range) Text
RKW Klerks Inc. v. United States, 592 F.Supp.3d 1349 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (the court finds that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection correctly classified the netwraps) Text
Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, 589 F.Supp.3d 346 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (Commerce’s findings of de facto specificity and substantial dependence are supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law) Text
Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. v. United States, 551 F.Supp.3d 1339 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (sustaining Dept. of Commerce’s final results of their administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People’s Republic of China) Text
Mosaic Co. v. United States, 589 F.Supp.3d 298 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (Commerce’s final determination in the countervailing duty investigation of phosphate fertilizers from the Russian Federation is partially sustained and partially remanded for reconsideration consistent with this opinion) Text
All One God Faith, Inc. v. United States, 589 F.Supp.3d 1238 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (grants the U. S’s motion to dismiss Dr. Bronner’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, dismisses GLoB’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denies plaintiff’s remaining motions for judgment on the agency record) Text
All One God Faith, Inc. v. United States, 581 F.Supp.3d 1344 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (denies Plaintiff’s motion to file a first amended complaint or, in the alternative, to supplement its complaint) Text
Adee Honey Farms v. United States, 582 F.Supp.3d 1286 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (denied Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record) Text
Adee Honey Farms v. United States, 577 F.Supp.3d 1362 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (denying motion for reconsideration of court’s previous ruling dismissing some claims as time-barred by the statute of limitations) Text
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, 578 F.Supp.3d 1310 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (remanding U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s determination of non-evasion of antidumping duties, denying defendant-intervenor’s motion for supplemental briefing, and issuing a protective order to apply to the remand proceedings) Text
Ghigi 1870 S.p.A v. United States, 577 F.Supp.3d 1338 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (sustains Commerce’s application of adverse inferences as supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law) Text
Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited v. United States, 569 F.Supp.3d 338 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (while Commerce acted in accordance with law interpreting 19 C.F.R. § 351.404 and declining to apply a knowledge test to its assessment of potential third country markets, it nevertheless failed to support its rejection of ZASF’s Vietnamese sales data and use of constructed value with substantial evidence) Text
Ghigi 1870 S.p.A v. United States, 547 F.Supp.3d 1332 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (final results are remanded for Commerce to reconsider and explain its adverse inference determination in a manner that satisfies the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 677e(b) and to support its redetermination with substantial record evidence) Text
Mosaic Co. v. United States, 540 F.Supp.3d 1330 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (granting motion of plaintiff OCP, S.A. and enjoining the liquidation of certain entries of merchandise subject to a countervailing duty order) Text
Godaco Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, 539 F.Supp.3d 1286 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (sustaining the second remand results of the Dept. of Commerce following the thirteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) Text
Calcutta Seafoods PVT. Ltd. v. United States, 539 F.Supp.3d 1264 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (sustained Commerce’s recalculation of the Elque Group’s AD duty rate without applying AFA) Text
NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co. v. United States, 538 F.Supp.3d 1356 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (sustaining the remand results of the Dept. of Commerce in the 2016-2017 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) Text
Jaramillo Spices Corp. v. United States, 531 F.Supp.3d 1354 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (granted defendant’s motion to dismiss because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)) Text
Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, 523 F.Supp.3d 1393 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021)(court concluded that Commerce’s interpretations of § 1677(5A)’s de jure specificity test and of § 1677-2’s prior state product analysis are not in accordance with law) Text
Qingdao Sea-Line Int’l Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 503 F.Supp.3d 1355 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (court concluded that Commerce’s final results were in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence) Text
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Co. v. United States, 503 F.Supp.3d 1347 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (sustaining the Dept. of Commerce’s second remand results in the twelfth administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) Text
Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States, 494 F.Supp.3d 1347 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (sustaining the results of the Dept. of Commerce’s remand redetermination in the sixteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering fresh garlic from the People’s Republic of China) Text
Calcutta Seafoods PVT. Ltd. v. United States, 495 F.Supp.3d 1318 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (Commerce was statutorily obligated to provide further assistance under § 1677m(c)(2) and applicable case law, yet it did not and instead applied AFA) Text
Godaco Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, 494 F.Supp.3d 1294 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (sustaining in part and remanding in part the remand results of the Dept. of Commerce following the thirteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) Text
NTSF Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, 487 F.Supp.3d 1310 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (sustaining the use of the use of financial statements to calculate surrogate financial ratios, sustaining Commerce’s application of the 2012 data to calculate surrogate values for NTSF’s fingerlings, and remanding Commerce’s denial of byproduct offsets) Text
Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 483 F.Supp.3d 1321 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (Hung Vuong did not rebut the presumption of good faith that attaches to official action by Commerce and remanded to Commerce to reconsider the customer questionnaire, byproduct issues, total adverse inference, and the rate applied) Text
Starkist Co., v. United States, 485 F.Supp.3d 1362 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (the classification of the plaintiff’s tuna products were properly classified under HTSUS 1604.14.10) Text
Intercontinental Chemicals, LLC v. United States, 483 F.Supp.3d 1232 (Ct. Int’l 2020) (The dispute was about the Final Results, so the basis for jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) not 28 U.S.C. § 581(i)) Text
Jinxiang Infang Fruit & Vegetable Co., Ltd, v. United States, 476 F.Supp.3d 1415 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (sustained Commerce’s determination in the New Shipper Review because plaintiff replicated their administrative briefs in their opening brief to the CIT and failed to disclose a related case on its Information Statement) Text
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Co. et al. v. United States, 425 F.Supp.3d 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (remanded Commerce’s final determination with respect to the denial of separate rate status to the names “Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32” and “Seafoods and Foodstuffs Factory”) Text
Jem D International Inc. USA v. United States, 470 F.Supp.3d 1374 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (plaintiff’s claims became moot when they signed the 2019 Suspension Agreement) Text
Bioparques De Occidente, S.A. De C.V. v. United States, 470 F.Supp.3d 1366 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (plaintiff’s claims were unripe) Text
Coalition for Fair Trade in Garlic v. United States, 463 F.Supp.3d 1380 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (upheld Commerce’s determination that CFTG’s review request was invalid) Text
Red Sun Farms v. United States, 469 F.Supp.3d 403 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (plaintiff’s claims were unripe) Text
Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, 469 F.Supp.3d 1330 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (granted Government’s request for a voluntary remand to consider New Zealand’s new fisheries measures) Text
Confederacion De Asociciones Agricolas Del Estado De Sinaloa, A.C., et al. v. United States, 459 F.Supp.3d 1354 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (plaintiff’s claims became moot when they signed the 2019 Suspension Agreement) Text
CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, 461 F.Supp.3d 1363 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (sustained Commerce’s determination that the 2020 CVD Amendment met the public interest criteria of 19 U.S.C. § 1673c(a)(2)(B)) Text
CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, 461 F.Supp.3d 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (sustained Commerce’s determination that the 2020 AD Amendment met the public interest criteria of 19 U.S.C. § 1673c(a)(2)(B)) Text
Adee Honey Farms v. United States, 450 F.Supp.3d 1365 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (plaintiff’s claims were time-barred to the extent these claims sought § 505(d) interest on any CDSOA distributions they received prior to July 15, 2014) Text
Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. v. Wilbur Ross, 456 F.Supp.3d 1292 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (granted plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal under CIT Rule 41(a)(2)) Text
Shenzen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States, 456 F.Supp.3d 1272 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (sustained in part the Dept. of Commerce’s final results in the sixteenth administrative review of the antidumping order covering fresh garlic from the People’s Republic of China) Text
Coalitition for Fair Trade in Garlic v. United States, 437 F.Supp.3d 1347 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (remanded the Dept. of Commerce’s final results and partial recission of the twenty-second antidumping duty administrative review) Text
Godaco Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, 435 F.Supp.3d 1342 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (sustained in part and remanded in part the Dept. of Commerce’s final results of the thirteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) Text
Can Tho Import-Export Joint Stock Company v. United States, 435 F.Supp.3d 1300 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (sustained the Dept. of Commerce’s remand redetermination in the eleventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) Text
Shandong Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export Co., Ltd. v. United States, 429 F.Supp.3d 1373 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (Commerce acted within its discretion when it rejected Zhengyang’s revised case brief and did not consider it in the Final Results of AR22) Text
Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, 429 F.Supp.3d 1325 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (remanding to Commerce on issues of Commerce’s determination that the EU and Spain’s subsidies to olive growers are de jure specific pursuant to Section 1677(5A); and Commerce’s analysis of subsidies attributed to ripe olives pursuant to Section 1677-2(1)) Text
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company v. United States, 425 F.Supp.3d 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (sustaining in part and remanding in part the Dept. of Commerce’s final results in the twelfth administrative review of the antidumping order covering frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) Text
Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States, 361 F.Supp.3d 1337 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019) (sustaining the Dept. of Commerce’s Final Determination in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s fifteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering fresh garlic from the People’s Republic of China) Text
Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. v. United States, 378 F.Supp.3d 1340 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019) (sustaining the final results of the Department of Commerce’s administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering freshwater crawfish tail meat from China) Text
Vicentin S.A.I.C. v. United States, 404 F.Supp.3d 1323 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019) (remanding the Dept. of Commerce’s decision to account for renewable identification numbers and remanding Commerce’s decision to disregard domestic soybean prices based on the existence of a particular market situation) Text
Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa, A.C. v. United States, 389 F.Supp.3d 1386 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019) (dismissing a motion for a TRO to enjoin the Dept. of Commerce from ordering a suspension of the liquidation of entries of fresh tomatoes from Mexico and resuming an antidumping investigation into those tomatoes) Text
Former Employees of Honeywell International, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, 359 F.Supp.3d 1323 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019) (upholding the denial of eligibility of certain Former Employees of Honeywell International, Inc. for benefits under the Trade Adjustment Assistance) Text
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Ross, 331 F.Supp.3d 1381 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (import ban on all fish and fish products from Mexican commercial fisheries that use gillnets within the vaquita’s range) Text
United States v. Gateway Import Management, Inc., 324 F.Supp.3d 1328 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (government stated claim against importer of cigars and domestic purchaser seeking recovery of unpaid federal excise taxes) Text
Andritz Sundwig GMBH v. United States, 322 F.Supp.3d 1360 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (subject matter jurisdiction was lacking over importer’s lawsuit seeking to prevent emergency exportation of machinery in insect-infested packaging) Text
Government of Sri Lanka v. United States, 308 F.Supp.3d 1373 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (payments made by Sri Lanka government pursuant to its guaranteed price scheme for rubber (GPS) program did not constitute countervailable subsidies) Text
Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. v. United States, 308 F.Supp.3d 1329 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (substantial evidence did not support Commerce’s conclusion in calculating dumping margin that Thai data, as surrogate value, was not aberrational) Text
Quiedan Company v. United States, 294 F.Supp.3d 1345 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (Commerce’s determination that importer’s agricultural training stakes fell within scope of antidumping duty order was reasonable) Text
United States v. Rupari Food Services‚ Inc., 298 F.Supp.3d 1347 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (importer who knowingly made materially false representations to customs regarding antidumping duty was liable for fraud-based penalty under Tariff Act) Text
United States v. Maverick Marketing, LLC, 295 F.Supp.3d 1349 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (government stated claim seeking to recover unpaid federal excise tax and prejudgment interest from importer and manufacturer pursuant to Tariff Act) Text
Silfab Solar, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.Supp.3d 1295 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (importer did not have substantial likelihood of success on its claim that safeguard duties violated “escape clause” provision of Trade Act) Text
An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company v. United States, 284 F.Supp.3d 1350 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (Department of Commerce’s remand redetermination explaining denial of separate antidumping rate of importer of frozen fish fillets was reasonable) Text
Kalle USA, Inc. v. United States, 273 F.Supp.3d 1319 (Ct. Int. Trade 2017) (textile tariff classification applied to imported casings manufactured by gluing textile-plastic composite sheeting together creating tubes to encase food) Text
Özdemir Boru San. v. Tic. Ltd. Sti., 273 F.Supp.3d 1225 (Ct. Int. Trade 2017) (Department of Commerce could use 14.01 percent rate based on adverse facts available after drawing inference against Turkish exporter) Text
Fla. Tomato Exchange v. United States, 255 F.Supp.3d 1362 (Ct. Int. Trade 2017) (substantial evidence did not support Commerce’s decision that suspension agreement would prevent suppression of domestic price levels for tomatoes) Text
Mondelez Global LLC v. United States, 253 F.Supp.3d 1329 (Ct. Int. Trade 2017) (genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether gum base could be classified under heading for “food preparation”) Text
An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company v. United States, 236 F.Supp.3d 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017) (remand was required for Commerce to explain why surrogate value (SV) data sources on record did not lead to reasonable value) Text
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By–Products Import & Export Group Corp. v. United States, 227 F.Supp.3d 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017) (evidence supported Commerce’s rejection of less reliable information when determining surrogate value for honey from non-market economy China) Text
Harmoni International Spice, Inc. v. United States, 211 F.Supp.3d 1298 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017) (Dinners associated with Thanksgiving and Christmas were not “specific cultural ritual celebrations” within meaning of HTSUS subheading) Text
WWRD U.S., LLC v. United States, 211 F.Supp.3d 1365 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017) (preliminary injunction prohibiting Customs from requiring importer to post bonds on garlic purchased from Chinese producer was not warranted) Text
United States v. International Trading Services, LLC, 222 F.Supp.3d 1325 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017) (Commerce’s determination that Vietnamese exporter was not entitled to separate antidumping rate was not supported by substantial evidence) Text
Imperial Sugar Company v. United States, 181 F.Supp.3d 1284 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2016) (injurious effect of increasing import volume was completely eliminated by agreements to resolve AD and CVD petitions on sugar from Mexico) Text
SunEdison, Inc. v. United States, 179 F.Supp.3d 1309 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2016) (Departure by Commerce from prior policy concerning antidumping duty calculations for solar panels produced in multiple countries warranted remand) Text
Coalition for Fair Trade of Hardwood Plywood v. United States International Trade Commission, 180 F.Supp.3d 1137 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2016) (International Trade Commission’s threat of material injury determination was not supported by substantial evidence) Text
An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company v. United States, 179 F.Supp.3d 1256 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2016) (selection of Indonesia as primary surrogate country was reasonable in antidumping duty order covering frozen fish fillets from Vietnam) Text
Tri Union Frozen Products, Inc. v. United States, 163 F.Supp.3d 1255 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2016) (substantial evidence supported decision by Commerce to use Bangladeshi data rather than data from India to value all raw shrimp consumption) Text
Fresh Garlic Producers Association v. United States, 121 F.Supp.3d 1313 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (substantial evidence supported Commerce’s determination that Chinese producer failed to cooperate in antidumping proceeding) Text
U.S. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading Pennsylvania, 91 F.Supp.3d 1324 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (fraud claim against importer for allegedly circumventing antidumping duties was alleged with sufficient particularity) Text
Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. U.S., 91 F.Supp.3d 1304 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (importer’s bauxite proppants were classifiable under HTSUS as aluminum ores and concentrates, rather than as ceramic wares) Text
Fresh Garlic Producers Ass’n v. U.S., 83 F.Supp.3d 1330 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (Department of Commerce’s selected surrogate value of inputs was based on best available information in antidumping review) Text
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi v. Ticaret A.S., 61 F.Supp.3d 1306 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (application of adverse facts available required further explanation in countervailing duty investigation) Text
Zhaoqing Tifo New Fibre Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 60 F.Supp.3d 1328 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (Chinese producer and exporter of polyester staple fiber was not required to exhaust administrative remedies with regard to double counting of coal in factors of production) Text
Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries v. U.S., 71 F.Supp.3d 1356 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (Negative material injury determination in countervailing duty investigation was reasonable) Text
Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat, JSC v. U.S., 58 F.Supp.3d 1397 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (Department of Commerce reasonably determined that content of importer’s product fell within scope of antidumping duty order) Text
Jinxiang Yuanxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 71 F.Supp.3d 1338 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (importer’s lack of bona fide sales premium warranted rescission of new shipper review under antidumping duty order) Text
Vinh Hoan Corp. v. U.S., 49 F.Supp.3d 1285 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (relative economic comparability of potential surrogate countries required analysis in selecting surrogate country in antidumping case) Text
Standard Furniture Mfg. Co., Inc. v. U.S., 37 F.Supp.3d 1365 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (domestic producer’s conduct supporting antidumping petition did not override written opposition) Text
Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. U.S., 34 F.Supp.3d 1386 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (statute limiting distribution of antidumping duties did not violate First Amendment) Text
Ethan Allen Global, Inc. v. U.S., 37 F.Supp.3d 1371 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (domestic producer was disqualified from sharing in antidumping duties) Text
Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 34 F.Supp.3d 1331 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (Commerce’s determination that entity that took title to goods after importation was an exporter was unreasonable) Text
Downhole Pipe & Equipment, LP v. U.S., 34 F.Supp.3d 1310 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (inventory changes did not indicate imminent threat to domestic producers warranting issuance of antidumping and countervailing duty orders) Text
Clearon Corp. v. U.S., 38 C.I.T. 1122 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (antidumping duty order; chlorinated isocyanurates) Text
Siemens Energy, Inc. v. U.S., 992 F.Supp.2d 1315 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (deference to affirmative injury determination arising from divided vote of International Trade Commission was warranted) Text
Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. U.S., 968 F.Supp.2d 1244 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (antidumping duty order; countervailing duty orders; aluminum extrusions) Text
Xiamen Intern. Trade and Indus. Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 953 F.Supp.2d 1307 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (antidumping duty order; preserved mushrooms) Text
Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Indus. Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 949 F.Supp.2d 1311 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (antidumping duty order; preserved mushrooms) Text
Downhole Pipe & Equipment, LP v. U.S., 963 F.Supp.2d 1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (antidumping duty order; countervailing duty order; steel drill pipe and steel drill collars) Text
Wuhu Fenglian Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 899 F.Supp.2d 1355 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (antidumping duty new shipper reviews; bona fide sale; honey) Text
Union Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 896 F.Supp.2d 1330 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (zeroing in administrative antidumping reviews) Text
Link Snacks, Inc. v. U.S., 901 F.Supp.2d 1369 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States classification; beef jerky) Text
Roche Vitamins, Inc. v. U.S., 922 F.Supp.2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (tariff classification; Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States; beta-carotene products) Text
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. v. U.S., 37 C.I.T. 896 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (critical circumstance determination; honey) Text
Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 918 F.Supp.2d 1345 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (antidumping duty; garlic) Text
Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., 37 C.I.T. 1080 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (antidumping duty new shipper reviews; Pangasius fish) Text
Clearon Corp. v. U.S., 37 C.I.T. 220 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (antidumping duty; chlorinated isocyanurates)
Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 895 F.Supp.2d 1337 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (antidumping duty; polyethylene retail carrier bags) Text
Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 36 C.I.T. 1730 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (antidumping duty; countervailing duty; coated paper) Text
R.T. Foods, Inc. v. U.S., 36 C.I.T. 1637 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification; tempura battered vegetable mixture) Text
Del Monte Corp. v. U.S., 36 C.I.T. 1400 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification; tuna fish) Text
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. U.S., 36 C.I.T. 1206 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (countervailing duty investigation; multilayered wood flooring) Text
OTR Wheel Engineering, Inc. v. U.S., 901 F.Supp.2d (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (antidumping; countervailing duty order; pneumatic OTR tires) Text
Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 36 C.I.T. 451 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (antidumping; valuation of garlic) Text
Rack Room Shoes v. U.S., 36 C.I.T. 211 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States; tariff rates) Text
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. U.S., 36 C.I.T. 148 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (antidumping; Equal Access to Justice Act) Text
Grobest & I-Mei Indus. (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, 36 C.I.T. 98 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (antidumping; valuation of shrimp) Text
Nat. Fisheries Inst. v. U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Prot., 714 F. Supp.2d 1231 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2010) (bonding requirement on importers of shrimp products) Text
QVD Food Co. v. United States, 721 F.Supp.2d 1311 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2010) (antidumping order covering fish fillets from Vietnam) Text
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria & Agricultura v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2010) (antidumping duty order) Text
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 714 F.Supp.2d 1282 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2010) (antidumping; shrimp) Text
Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co. v. United States, 675 F.Supp.2d 1320 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2010) (challenging antidumping duty order) Text
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 647 F.Supp.2d 1368 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009) (antidumping; valuation of shrimp) Text
Vinh Quang Fisheries Corp. v. United States, 637 F.Supp.2d 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009) (valuation of unprocessed fish waste) Text
Catfish Farmers of Am. v. United States, 641 F.Supp.2d 1362 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009) (remanding to redetermining calculation of net price) Text
Nat’l Fisheries Inst., Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 637 F.Supp.2d 1270 (Ct. Int’l Trade, 2009) (setting aside bond determination; bond for shrimp importers) Text
Taian Ziyang Food Co. v. United States, 637 F.Supp.2d 1093 (Ct. Int’l Trade, 2009) (antidumping duty; factors of production in fresh garlic) Text
Hacker v. U.S. Sec’y of Agric., 33 C.I.T. 799 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009) (denial of trade adjustment assistance benefits)
S. Shrimp Alliance v. United States, 617 F.Supp.2d 1334 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009) (claim of improper distribution of CDSOA funds) Text
Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co. v. United States, 617 F.Supp.2d 1281 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009) (challenging administrative review of antidumping duty on fresh garlic from China) Text
Allied Pac. Food (Dalian) Co. v. United States, 587 F.Supp.2d 1330 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (antidumping duty investigation) Text
Conlin Greenhouses v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 32 C.I.T. 467 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (trade adjustment assistance benefits)
Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States, 556 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (importer’s duties) Text
Pat Huval Rest. & Oyster Bar, Inc. v. United States, 547 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (affected domestic producers list) Text
Dus & Derrick, Inc. v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 32 C.I.T. 151 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (trade adjustment assistance benefits)
Tropicana Prods. v. United States, 32 C.I.T. 122 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (causation of injury to the domestic industry)
Dorsey v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 32 C.I.T. 92 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (trade adjustment assistance benefits reconsidered)
Seafood Exps. Ass’n of India v. United States, 32 C.I.T. 78 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (notice pertaining to the bond directive)
Den Hoed v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 533 F.Supp.2d 1354 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (trade adjustment assistance benefits) Text
Anderson v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 493 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (trade adjustment assistance benefits approved) Text
O’Toole v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 471 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (trade adjustment assistance benefits denied) Text
Valley Fresh Seafood, Inc. v. United States, 31 C.I.T. 1989 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (administrative review of an antidumping duty order contested)
Avecia, Inc. v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (protest jurisdiction) Text
Native Fed’n of the Madre De Dios River & Tributaries v. Bozovich Timber Prods., 491 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (Endangered Species Act (ESA) Text
Lady Kim T. Inc. v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 491 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (trade adjustment assistance) Text
PS Chez Sidney, L.L.C. v. United States ITC, 502 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (First Amendment claims) Text
Nevinnomysskiy Azot v. United States, 31 C.I.T. 1373 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (revocation of antidumping duty) Text
Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States, 526 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (antidumping duty order) Text
Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States, 31 C.I.T. 1710 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (dumping margin)
Cricket Hosiery, Inc. v. United States, 429 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (First Amendment) Text
Native Fed’n of the Madre De Dios River & Tributaries v. Bozovich Timber Prods., 491 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (environmentalists asserted violation of CITES) Text
Canadian Wheat Bd. v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (exception from liquidation of importer’s entries) Text
PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 495 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (antidumping administrative review) Text
Allied Pac. Food (Dalian) Co. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (final antidumping less-than-fair-value determination) Text
Wooten v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 441 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (trade adjustment assistance) Text
Nat’l Fisheries Inst., Inc. v. United States Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 465 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (imposition of rigorous continuous bond requirements) Text
Selivanoff v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 30 C.I.T. 1051 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (trade adjustment assistance cash benefits denied) Text
Lady Kelly, Inc. v. United States Secy. of Agric., 427 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (trade adjustment assistance) Text
Cabana v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 427 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (trade adjustment assistance (TAA) benefits) Text
Than Viet Do v. United States Secretary of Agriculture, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (Trade Adjustment Assistance) Text
Desert Glory, Ltd. v. United States, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (antidumping investigation notice) Text
Hontex Enters. v. United States, 29 C.I.T. 1096 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (antidumping duty rate for two foreign exporters) Text
Nufarm America’s, Inc. v. United States, 29 C.I.T. 1317, 1318 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (imposition of duties on merchandise imported under duty deferral programs) Text
Tao Van Trinh v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 29 C.I.T. 1058 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (trade adjustment assistance benefits) Text
Ingman v. United States Sec’y of Agric., 29 C.I.T. 1123 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (trade adjustment assistance benefits)
Int’l Labor Rights Fund v. United States, 29 C.I.T. 1050 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (imported cocoa produced by forced child labor) Text
Int’l Custom Prods. v. United States, 29 C.I.T. 617 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (imposition of a rate advance contested) Text
An Giang Agriculture and Food Import Export Company v. United States, 350 F.Supp.2d 1162 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) (Dep’t of Commerce statutory authority) Text
Huaiyang Hongda Dehydrated Vegetable Co. v. United States, 28 C.I.T. 1944 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) (administrative review of the antidumping order) Text
Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. United States, 28 C.I.T. 931 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) (administrative review of the antidumping order) Text
Pillsbury Co. v. United States, 28 C.I.T. 1418 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) (U.S. Harmonized Tariff Sched. classification) Text
Yancheng Baolong Biochemical Prods. Co. v. United States, 28 C.I.T. 578 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) (administrative review of the antidumping order) Text
Pillsbury Co. v. United States, 27 C.I.T. 1628 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (drawback claims) Text
Former Emples. of Galey & Lord Indus. v. Chao, 26 C.I.T. 806 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (trade adjustment assistance) Text
Orleans Int’l v. United States, 26 C.I.T. 543 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985) Text
Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States Doc, 26 C.I.T. 494 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (review of antidumping duty) Text
Ocean Harvest Wholesale, Inc. v. United States, 26 C.I.T. 358 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (first administrative review of the antidumping duty)
Kanematsu United States v. United States, 26 C.I.T. 137 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (agricultural use classifies the subject merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Sched. of the United States) Text
Pac. Giant Inc. v. United States, 26 C.I.T. 894 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (antidumping duty order) Text
FIRST CIRCUIT
Vicor Corp. v. FII USA Inc., 132 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2025) (grant of preliminary injunction enjoining foreign arbitration was not warranted after assembler requested statutory stay) Text
Current Lighting Sols., LLC v. Signify Holding B.V., No. CV 23-11398-GAO (D. Mass. Feb. 6, 2024) (patent infringement)
Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC, No. CV 16-10914-FDS, (D. Mass. June 15, 2023) (action for patent infringement) Text
Conair Corp. v. Next G, Corp., No. CV 20-1093 (SCC) (D.P.R. Mar. 17, 2023) (trademark infringement and counterfeiting)
Chr. Hansen HMO GmbH v. Glycosyn LLC, 2023 WL 2429355 (D. Mass 2023) (patent infringement for human milk sugar in infant formula) Text
Lluberes v. Uncommon Productions, 740 F.Supp.2d 207 (D. Mass 2010) (working conditions of Haitian sugarcane laborers) Text
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., Litig., 382 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D. Mass. 2004) (antitrust claims) Text
Harvey v. Veneman, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18162 (D. Me. Oct. 10, 2003) (organic labeling) Text
SECOND CIRCUIT
Threeline Imports, Inc. v. Vernikov, 239 F. Supp. 3d 542 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (trademark infringement claim against certain imported pasta products) Text
United Merch. Wholesale, Inc. v. IFFCO, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 3d 249, 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (wholesale distributor brought breach of contract, fraud, and negligence claims against importer and foreign exporter) Text
Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. SPI Spirits Ltd., 726 F.3d 62, 73 (2d Cir. 2013) (trademark infringement) Text
Haggar Int’l Corp. v. United Co. for Food Indus. Corp., 906 F. Supp. 2d 96 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (trademark infringement and unfair competition) Text
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 613 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2010) (importation of solid wood packing material) Text
Boyd v. AWB Ltd., 544 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (monopoly on wheat sold to Iraq) Text
NRDC, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40644 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (environmental impact)
THIRD CIRCUIT
Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc. v. Syngenta Seeds, LLC, No. CV 22-1280-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 12, 2023) (patent infringement)
Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc. v. Singh Trading Co., Inc., 2023 WL 4103930 (D.N.J. 2023) (trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition) Text
Intercitrus, Ibertrade Commercial Corp. v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15427 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (import suspension order)
FOURTH CIRCUIT
Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC v. Willowood, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-274 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2017), aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev’d in part, 944 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (patent and copyright infringement) Text
Md. Port Admin. v. Premier Auto. Servs. (In re Premier Auto. Servs.), 343 B.R. 501 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006) (bankruptcy and new lease) Text
FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States v. Chung’s Prods. LP, 941 F. Supp. 2d 770 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (food safety in imported products)
Piazza’s Seafood World, LLC v. Odom, 448 F.3d 744 (5th Cir. 2006) (state labeling statute) Text
Pat Huval’s Fisherman Wharf v. ITC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62678 (W.D. La. 2006) (“the Byrd Amendment”) Text
SIXTH CIRCUIT
Caviar v. United States Fish & Wildlife Servs., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100878 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 15, 2008) (exhaustion of administrative remedies) Text
Mich. Pork Producers Ass’n v. Veneman, 348 F.3d 157 (6th Cir. 2003) (First Amendment) Text
Dailey v. Veneman, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 24623 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2002) (plant and meat inspection)
SEVENTH CIRCUIT
F.C. Bloxom Co. v. Tom Lange Co. Int’l, Inc., 109 F.4th 925 (7th Cir. 2024) (breach of contract) Text
In re Syngenta Mass Tort Actions, 272 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1080 (S.D. Ill. 2017) (tortious interference with business actions, deceptive trade practices) Text
Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc., 683 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2012) (potash price-fixing) Text
Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, Inc. v. Giannoulias, 523 F. Supp. 2d 731, 735 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (humanitarian exception for exports of ag. products to Sudan) Text
Caterpillar Inc. v. Telescan Techs., L.L.C., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3477 (C.D. Ill. 2002) (trademark)
EIGHTH CIRCUIT
In re Pork Antitrust Litig., 781 F. Supp. 3d 758, 885 (D. Minn. 2025) (price fixing)
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge N. Am., Inc., 773 F.3d 58, 60 (8th Cir. 2014) (breach of contract) Text
Schoenbaum v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24630 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 27, 2008) (monopoly)
Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. Miller, 241 F. Supp. 2d 978 (S.D. Iowa 2003) (facial discrimination against foreign interests) Text
S.D. Farm Bureau v. Hazeltine, 2002 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D.S.D. 2002) (exclusion of foreign corporations from business) Text
NINTH CIRCUIT
Rodriguez v. Old W. Exp., Inc., 711 F. Supp. 3d 1182 (E.D. Cal. 2024) (Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act) Text
Apr. in Paris v. Bonta, 659 F. Supp. 3d 1114 (E.D. Cal. 2023) (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) Text
Dickinson Frozen Foods, Inc. v. FPS Food Process Solutions Corporation, 2022 WL 3346296 (D. Idaho 2022) (breach of contract under the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods) Text
Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co., 35 F.4th 1159 (9th Cir. 2022) (Trafficking Victims Protection Act) Text
Lodestar Anstalt v. Bacardi & Co., Ltd., 31 F.4th 1228 (9th Cir. 2022) (trademark registration) Text
Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018 WL 1586648 (D. Ariz. March 30, 2018) (challenging whether LEMIS import/export data is exempt from a FOIA request) Text
U.S. Citrus Science Council v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 312 F.Supp.3d 884 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (challenging a rule lifting the ban on lemons imported from Argentina) Text
Martini E Ricci Iamino S.P.A.–Consortile Societa Agricola v. Western Fresh Marketing Services, Inc., 54 F.Supp.3d 1094 (E.D.Cal. 2014) (United Nations Convention of the International Sale of Goods did not apply to agreement between fruit producers and supplier) Text
Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm’n, 546 F. Supp. 2d 859 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (First Amendment) Text
Earth Island Inst. v. Hogarth, 484 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2007) (fishery effects on dolphin conservation) Text
Cactus Corner, LLC v. United States Dep’t. of Agric., 450 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2006) (import permission) Text
United States ex rel. Huangyan Imp. & Exp. Corp v. Nature’s Farm Prods., 370 F. Supp. 2d 993 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (falsification of products’ country of origin) Text
Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Am. v. USDA, 415 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (import ban Final Rule determination) Text
In re Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1293 (E.D. Wash. 2003) (collection assessments) Text
United States v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (lockout affected the maritime industry) Text
Charter v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 230 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (D. Mont. 2002) (maintenance and expansion of existing beef markets) Text
TENTH CIRCUIT
Thornton v. Tyson Foods, 28 F.4th 1016 (10th Cir. 2022) (country of origin labeling and live cattle imported into the United States for slaughter) Text
U.S. Ex rel. Bahrani v. ConAgra, Inc., 624 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2010) (fraudulent alteration of USDA export certificates for meat products) Text
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Fed. Express Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Com., 486 F. Supp. 3d 69, 73 (D.D.C. 2020) (Export Control Reform Act) Text
Fertilizantes Tocantins S.A. v. TGO Agriculture (USA) Inc., 2023 WL 1781561 (M.D. Fla. 2023) (breach of express contract claim in a contract for ammonium sulfate for fertilizer) Text
Osorio v. Dole Food Company, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 713 (11th Cir. January 5, 2009) (recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment)
United States v. Norris, 452 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2006) (CITES sentencing) Text
United States v. Panhandle Trading, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53698 (N.D. Fla. 2006) (false labeling)
Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2005) (labor dispute) Text
D.C. CIRCUIT
Amazon Servs. LLC v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 109 F.4th 573 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (unlawful importation) Text
Well Luck Company, Inc. v. United States, 887 F.3d 1106 (D.C. Cir 2018) (importer’s sunflower seed that were prepared for consumption were classified under HTSUS subheading covering fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants) Text
Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. United States, 845 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir 2017) (Commerce failed to provide notice before withdrawal of targeted dumping regulation, in violation of Administrative Procedure Act (APA)) Text
Mid Continent Nail Corporation v. United States, 846 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir 2017) (bauxite proppants from China were classifiable as “aluminum ores and concentrates” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States) Text
Schaeffler Group USA, Inc. v. U.S., 786 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir 2015) (retroactive application of CDSOA provision that prohibited distributions of antidumping duties did not violate due process)
Roche Vitamins, Inc. v. U.S., 772 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir 2014) (importer’s beta-carotene product was classifiable as provitamins unmixed) Text
Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co., Ltd. v. U.S., 766 F.3d 1378 (D.C. Cir 2014) (best available information consisted of prices on largest grade of non-contemporaneous whole garlic bulbs)
R.T. Foods, Inc. v. U.S., 757 F.3d 1349 (D.C. Cir 2014) (Entries were classifiable under HTSUS provision for prepared mixed vegetables)
Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. v. U.S., 751 F.3d 1371 (D.C. Cir 2014) (Commerce’s exclusion of surrogate financial statements was reasonable on redetermination of antidumping duty claim) Text
Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. U.S., 734 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir 2013) (Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act; Affected Domestic Producers) Text
PS Chez Sidney, L.L.C. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com’n, 684 F.3d 1374 (D.C. Cir 2012) (qualification as affected domestic producer; Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act)
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria and Agricultura v. U.S., 36 C.I.T. 656 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (antidumping; valuation of orange juice)
Aromont USA, Inc. v. U.S., 671 F.3d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States) Text
Nat’l Corn Growers Ass’n v. E.P.A., 613 F.3d 266 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (EPA ban of carbofuran on domestic and imported food) Text
Int’l Ctr. for Tech. Assessment v. Johanns, 473 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2007) (genetically engineered (GE) varieties of grasses) Text
Hawai’i Orchid Growers Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 436 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2006) (Endangered Species Act challenged) Text
Am. Cargo Transp. v. Natsios, 429 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D.D.C. 2006) (contract to a foreign flag ship) Text
Banks v. Veneman, 402 F. Supp. 2d 43, 44 (D.D.C. 2005) (labor discrimination claims) Text
Int’l Labor Rights Fund v. Bush, 357 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D.D.C. 2004) (imported cocoa produced by forced child labor) Text
Castlewood Prods. v. Norton, 365 F.3d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Endangered Species Act) Text
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, 149 F.4th 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA)
Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, 102 F.4th 1252, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (countervailing duty on imported Spanish olives) Text
Bioparques de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 31 F.4th 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (antidumping) Text
StarKist Co. v. United States, 29 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (classification of imported ready-to-eat tuna salad) Text
Del Monte Corp. v. United States, 730 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (classification of microwaveable pouches containing tuna under the Harmonized Tarff Schedule) Text
Hacker v. United States, 613 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (denial of application for trade adjustment assistance cash benefits) Text
Aectra Ref. & Mktg., Inc. v. United States, 565 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (untimely claim for drawback on import fees) Text
Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States, 517 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (NAFTA Implementation Act) Text
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 515 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (antidumping investigation and the final scope determination) Text
Bourdeau Bros. v. ITC, 444 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (trademarks) Text
Steen v. United States, 468 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“trade adjustment assistance” cash benefit) Text
Gilda Indus. v. United States, 446 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (USTR’s compilation and administration of WTO retaliation list challenged) Text
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 432 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (retroactive antidumping duty) Text
Grandits v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 519 (Fed. Cl. 2005) (liability for overtime)
Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (dumping duty margin) Text
In re Les Halles de Paris J.V., 334 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (deceptive trademark) Text
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hogarth, 330 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (challenging administrative determinations) Text
Orleans Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Beef Promotion and Research Act) Text
Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. United States, 301 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (harbor maintenance tax (HMT)) Text
CALIFORNIA
Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc., 206 Cal. App. 4th 999, 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210 (2012) (breach of contract) Text
Sea Foods Co., Ltd. v. O.M. Foods Co., Ltd., 58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 700(Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (fraud) Text