Legal Opinion

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

United States Court of International Trade

Decided May 13, 2009No. Slip Op. 09-41; Court 06-00236PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

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”), 1 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 claim, correctly, that the Byrd Amendment may not be applied to AD duties on goods from Mexico.

Currently before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion to amend that complaint to add (1) a new cause of action, for unjust enrichment, against the…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. CampSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Steffel v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2013
  2. Thyssenkrupp Mexinox S.A. De C v. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2009
  3. Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API