Legal Opinion
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. And Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. v. The United States and the Timken Company
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided September 4, 1996No. 95-1497PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Under 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a) (1994), the amount of an antidumping duly is limited to the “amount of a cash deposit collected as security for an estimated antidumping duty.” Id. The substantive question in this case is whether this cap on antidumping duties applies where no cash security deposit (or bond in lieu thereof) has been posted. The Court of International Trade held the cap inapplicable because the merchandise on which the antidumping duties were assessed was imported before the effective date of the statute creating the cap. We affirm, but on the ground…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Commissioner v. SunnenSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Mayfield v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Skf Usa Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- SKF USA Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- GTE South, Inc. v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1999
- Mueller Comercial De Mexico, S. De R.L. De C v. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.