Legal Opinion
Usec Inc. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided March 25, 2003No. SLIP OP. 03-34. Court Nos. 02-00112, 02-00113, 02-00114, 02-00219, 02-00221, 02-00227, 02-00229, 02-00233PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
POGUE, Judge.
Plaintiffs Eurodif, S.A., COGEMA, COGEMA Inc. (collectively, “Cogema”), Urenco Limited, Urenco Deutschland GmbH, Urenco Nederland B.V., Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd. and Urenco, Inc. (collectively, “Urenco”), 1 challenge the final affirmative antidumping and countervailing duty determinations of the Department of Commerce (“the Department” or “Commerce”) with regard to low enriched uranium (“low enriched uranium” or “LEU”) from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. 2 Plaintiffs assert that the antidumping and countervailing duty laws do not apply to certain…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- United States v. Eurodif S. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Converdyn v. MonizDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Eurodif S.A. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2003
- Xiping Opeck Food Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2014
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.