558 F.Supp.2d 1367 (CIT. 2008), 05-00539, Trustees in Bankruptcy of North American Rubber Thread Co., Inc. v. United States
|Docket Nº:||Court No. 05-00539.|
|Citation:||558 F.Supp.2d 1367|
|Party Name:||TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY OF NORTH AMERICAN RUBBER THREAD CO., INC., Filmax Sdn. Bhd., Heveafil USA, Inc., and Heveafil Sdn. Bhd., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. Slip Op. 08-66.|
|Case Date:||June 10, 2008|
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
Miller & Chevalier Chartered, Washington, DC (Peter J. Koenig) for Plaintiff Trustees in Bankruptcy of North American Rubber Thread Co., Inc.
White & Case, LLP, Washington, DC (Walter J. Spak, Emily Lawson, and Jay C. Campbell) for Plaintiffs Filmax Sdn. Bhd., Heveafil USA, Inc., and Heveafil Sdn. Bhd.
Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General; United States Department of Justice; Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, (Stephen C. Tosini); David W. Richardson, Of Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, Department of Commerce for Defendant United States.
GOLDBERG, Senior Judge.
This case is before the Court following a court-ordered remand. See Tr. in Bankr.of N. Am. Rubber Thread Co. v. United States, 31 CIT __, 533 F.Supp.2d 1290 (2007) (“NART" ). In NART, the Court ordered the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce" ) to provide a reasonable explanation for its departure from past agency practice, or in the alternative to conduct a changed circumstances review. For the reasons stated below, the Court remands Commerce's results for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). When reviewing an action under section 1581(i), the Court will set aside a decision of Commerce if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2000); see28 U.S.C. § 2640(e) (2000).
The procedural history of this case is set forth in greater detail in the Court's previous opinions. See NART, 31 CIT at __, 533 F.Supp.2d at 1291-93; Tr. in Bankr.of N. Am. Rubber Thread Co. v. United States, 30 CIT __, __, 464 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1351-53 (2006). However, the relevant facts are as follows: In 1992, Commerce published an antidumping duty order on imports of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia. When North American Rubber...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP