Legal Opinion

Geum Poong Corp. v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided September 6, 2001No. Consol. 00-06-00298PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RESTANI, Judge.

This matter is before the court on motions for judgment based upon the agency record pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.2. The motions have been brought by certain respondents in an antidumping investigation, Geum Poong Corporation and Sam Young Synthetics Co., Ltd. (respectively, “Geum Poong” and “Sam Young”; collectively “Respondents”), and petitioners on behalf of the domestic industry in the antidump-ing investigation, E.I. DuPont de Nem-ours, Inc.; Arteva Specialties S.a.r.L, d/b/a KoSa; and Wellman, Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”). The parties challenge aspects of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. United States v. Haggar Apparel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. NTN Bearing Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
  4. Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1999
  5. Floral Trade Council v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1999

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Geum Poong Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2002
  2. Husteel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2015
  3. Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2007
  4. Atar, S.R.L. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2009
  5. Maverick Tube Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2015

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API