Legal Opinion
Allegheny Bradford Corp. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided June 4, 2004No. SLIP OP. 04-59; Court 02-00073PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RESTANI, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Allegheny Bradford Corporation, d/b/a Top Line Process Equipment Company (“Top Line”) moves for judgment on the agency record that its stainless steel butt-weld tube fittings from Taiwan were improperly ruled to be within the scope of an antidumping duty order by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or “Department”). Final Scope Ruling on the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Allegheny Bradford Corporation d/b/a Top Line Process Equipment (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 10, 2001), P.R. 29:13:33, Pl.’s…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Novosteel Sa v. United States, and Bethlehem Steel Corporation and U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of Usx Corporation (Now Known as United States Steel Llc)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Diversified Products Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1983
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Eckstrom Industries, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Smith Corona Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Meridian Products, LLC v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Arcelormittal Stainless Belgium N v. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Omg, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2020
- Laminated Woven Sacks Committee v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2010
- Polites v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2011
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.