Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. v. United States
Decision Date | 28 January 1980 |
Docket Number | Court No. 77-8-02005. C.D. 4838. |
Citation | 483 F. Supp. 312 |
Parties | ARMSTRONG BROS. TOOL CO.; Bergman Tool Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Duro Metal Products Company; Milwaukee Tool & Equipment Co., Inc.; H. K. Porter, Inc.; Proto Tools Division, Ingersoll Rand Company; Tool Group, Dresser Industries, Inc.; and the Wright Tool & Forge Company, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES (Daido Corporation, Steelcraft Tools Division, Party-In-Interest), Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Joseph I. Liebman, Atty. in Charge, Field Office for Customs Litigation and Sidney N. Weiss, Trial Atty., New York City, for defendant.
Tanaka, Walders & Ritger, Washington, D. C. (H. William Tanaka, Lawrence R. Walders and Wesley K. Caine, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the party-in-interest.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs, American manufacturers and/or wholesalers of certain hand tools, contest the negative injury determination of the United States Tariff Commission ("Commission")1 in Wrenches, Pliers, Screwdrivers, and Metal-Cutting Snips and Shears From Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-141 (39 FR 38133 (1974), under the Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 160, et seq. (1970)). This action has been brought under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1582(b) (1976), 28 U.S.C. § 2632(a) (1976) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516(c) (1976). Daido Corporation, Steelcraft Tools Division, the party-in-interest, is the consignee of New York, New York consumption entry No. 77-471888, covering merchandise which falls within the description "wrenches, pliers, screwdrivers, and metal-cutting snips and shears from Japan".2
In this action, plaintiffs seek to overturn the negative injury determination reached by the Commission on October 21, 1974, viz., that "an industry in the United States is not being injured or is not likely to be injured, or is not prevented from being established, by reason of the importation of wrenches, pliers, screwdrivers and metal-cutting snips and shears from Japan that are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value "LTFV" within the meaning of the Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended".3 Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the Commission's negative injury determination is erroneous as a matter of law, is arbitrary and capricious, and is not supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiffs seek an order setting aside the Commission's determination and directing the Secretary of the Treasury to publish a finding of dumping, with the result that dumping duties will be assessed, where appropriate, on entries of the subject hand tools from Japan.
This action is presently before me on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and the cross-motions for summary judgment by defendant and the party-in-interest. The parties assert there is no genuine issue of fact. I have studied the massive administrative record and the excellent memoranda of law submitted by counsel; and for the reasons hereinafter expressed, I find that no justiciable issue of fact is presented in this case, and that defendant and the party-in-interest are entitled to summary judgment dismissing this action.
The statutory provisions relevant to this action are:
Section 201, Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 160 (1970):
Section 202(a), Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 161(a) (1970):
Section 516, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516 (1976):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Citrosuco Paulista, SA v. US
... ... CITROSUCO PAULISTA, S.A., Plaintiff, ... UNITED STATES and the United States International Trade ... Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. v. United States, 84 Cust.Ct. 102, 115, ... ...
-
Rhone Poulenc, SA v. United States
...(1982); Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. v. United States (Daido Corporation, Steelcraft Tools Division, Party-in-Interest), 84 Cust.Ct. 16, 483 F.Supp. 312 (1980), aff'd, 67 CCPA 94, 626 F.2d 168 (1980), and cases cited therein; accord Alberta Gas Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 1 C.I.T. 312, 32......
-
SCM Corp. v. United States
...United States, 475 F.2d 1189, 60 CCPA 123 (1973). See also recent discussion by Judge Newman in Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. et al. v. United States, etc., 84 Cust.Ct. ___, 483 F.Supp. 312 (1980), appeal pending. In the case at bar, the fundamental question presented is whether the ITC correctl......
-
ALBERTA PORK PRODUCERS'MARKETING BD. v. US
... ... UNITED STATES, Defendant, ... National Pork Producers Council and ... See Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. v. United States, 84 Cust. Ct. 16, 36-37, ... ...