Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Pentax Corp. v. Robison

United States Court of International Trade

Decided April 15, 1996No. Consolidated Court No. 96-01-00067PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Restani, Judge:

Pentax Corporation (“Pentax”), its parent company Asahi Optical Co., Ltd. (“AOC”), and AOC’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Asahi Optical (International) Ltd. (“AOI”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed actions seeking judicial review of a determination by the United States Customs Service (“Customs”) that plaintiffs must pay $5,157,601.30 in alleged “actual loss of marking duties,” plus accrued interest, to qualify for “prior disclosure” treatment under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(c) (4) (1988 & Supp. V1993). Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. Trayco, Incorporated v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
  3. United States v. BlumCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  4. Carlingswitch v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
  5. Carlingswitch, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1980

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Tikal Distributing Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1997
  2. Brother International Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2003
  3. United States v. Pentax Corp.United States Court of International Trade · 1999
  4. Bridalane Fashions, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1998
  5. Lee v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2002

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API