Legal Opinion

Thyssenkrupp Mexinox S.A. De C v. v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided December 15, 2009No. Slip Op. 09-138; Court 06-00236PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

JUDGMENT

POGUE, Judge.

This action involves the distribution to affected domestic producers, pursuant to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA” or “Byrd Amendment”), section 754 of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1675c (2000), of antidumping (“AD”) duties assessed and collected on imports of certain steel products from Mexico. In their complaint, Plaintiffs claimed, correctly, that the Byrd Amendment may not be applied to AD duties on goods from Mexico. On the other hand, on May 13, 2009, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add (1) a cause of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
  2. Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2006
  3. Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2006
  4. Thyssenkrupp Mexinox S.A. De C v. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2009
  5. Thyssenkrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2009

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Furniture Brands International, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API