Case Law Index International Agricultural Trade

January 1, 2002 – September 14, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sea Foods Co., Ltd. v. O.M. Foods Co., Ltd., 58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 700(Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (fraud) Text