Legal Opinion
PAO Severstal v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided April 25, 2017No. Slip Op. 17-50; Court No. 16-00172PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Katzmann, Judge:
If this case evokes a sense of déjá vu, it is because it presents from the same record the principal question posed and addressed in an opinion issued today by this court in ArcelorMittal v. United States, 41 CIT -, Op. -, (April 25, 2017) (“Ar-celorMittal”): Does a foreign exporter and producer, having obtained a de minimis subsidy rate in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), and not being subject to a countervailing duty (“CVD”) order, nonetheless have standing to challenge Commerce’s calculation of that subsidy rate. Put another way,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Clapper v. Amnesty International USASupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Donald A. Henke v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bldg. Sys. de Mexico, S.A. de C v. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2020
- Full Member Subgroup of the Am. Inst. of Steel Constr., LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2020
- Oman Fasteners, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2019