Dixon Ticonderoga Co. v. United States Customs & Border Protection
United States Court of International Trade
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BARZILAY, Judge.
Plaintiff, Dixon Ticonderoga Company (“Dixon”), seeks review of a decision by Defendant, United States Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security (“Customs” or “the Government”) to deny its application to receive its share of assessed Chinese pencil anti-dumping duties for fiscal year 2003. Customs denied Dixon’s application because it was filed late, and Dixon argues that this decision was arbitrary and capricious because Customs itself failed to publish notice of intent to distribute the offset in the Federal Register at least 90 days before…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. MerrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Brock v. Pierce CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Dixon Ticonderoga Company v. United States, and Musgrave Pencil Company, Rosemoon Pencil Company and General Pencil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Furniture Brands International, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2011
- Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2006
- Suntec Industries Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2013