Legal Opinion
Timken Co. v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided May 10, 2016No. Consol. 14-00155PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Restani, Judge:
This matter is before the court following the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) Final Results of Remand Redetermination, ECF No. 85 (“Remand Results”). The court remanded to Commerce to apply its differential pricing (“DP”) analysis in the 2009-2010 annual antidumping duty (“AD”) administrative review of imports of ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan and the United Kingdom. Timken Co. v. United States, 79 F.Supp.3d 1350, 1352, 1361 (C.I.T.2015) (“Timken”). Commerce has complied with the court’s remand order and, for the reasons stated below, Commerce’s…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- McCarthy v. MadiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. And Industrias Intercontinental, S.A. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Ceramica Regiomontanam, S.A. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1986
- Fujitsu General Limited v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Sys. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2018
- ArcelorMittal USA LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2019
- China Cornici Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2026