Legal Opinion
Hoogovens Staal BV v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
Decided April 12, 2000No. Consol. 96-10-02394PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
WATSON, Senior Judge.
I
Introduction
In these, consolidated antidumping duty-actions, plaintiffs, foreign and domestic steel companies, move for judgment on the agency record under USCIT Rule 56.2 contesting certain aspects of the United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) Final Results of the first administrative review in Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands Final Results of Antidump-ing Duty Administrative Review, 61 Fed. Reg. 48,465 (Dep’t of Commerce Sept. 13, 1996) (“Final Results ”). The first administrative review of the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. The United States and Zenith Radio CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Arkansas v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2001
- Luoyang Bearing Factory v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2003
- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2004
- Fujian MacHinery & Equipment Import & Export Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2003
- Target Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2009
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.