626 F.2d 168 (Fed. Cir. 1980), 80-20, Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. v. United States

Docket Nº:Appeal No. 80-20.
Citation:626 F.2d 168
Party Name: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, Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee, Daido Corporation, Steelcraft Tool
Case Date:August 07, 1980
Court:United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Page 168

626 F.2d 168 (Fed. Cir. 1980)

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, Appellants,

v.

The UNITED STATES, Appellee, Daido Corporation, Steelcraft Tools Division, Party-In-Interest Appellee.

Appeal No. 80-20.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

Aug. 7, 1980

Page 169

Frederick L. Ikenson, Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., David M. Cohen, Director, Joseph I. Liebman, Atty. in Charge, New York City, Field Office for Customs Litigation, Sidney N. Weiss, New York City, Commercial Litigation Branch.

H. William Tanaka, Lawrence R. Walders, Washington, D.C., Wesley K. Caine, New York City, for party-in-interest, appellee.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Associate Judges, and RE, Judge. [*]

MILLER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States Customs Court, 483 F.Supp. 312, 84 Cust.Ct. ---, C.D. 4838 (1980), upholding the determination of the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) that a domestic industry was not being injured or likely to be injured or prevented from being established by reason of the importation of tools (wrenches, pliers, screwdrivers, and metal-cutting snips and shears) from Japan that were being, or likely to be, sold at less than fair value within the meaning of section 201(a) of the Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended (19 U.S.C. s 160(a)). 1 We affirm.

The background and relevant facts are thoroughly presented in the opinion of the Customs Court and need not be repeated.

In appeals from the Customs Court involving determinations of injury or likelihood of injury in antidumping and countervailing duty cases considered by the Tariff Commission (now the ITC), this court has conducted its review upon the record made before the Commission 2 and has held that such review is limited to determining "whether the Commission has acted within its delegated authority, has correctly interpreted (pertinent) statutory language, and has correctly applied the law." City Lumber Co. v. United States, 59 C.C.P.A. 89, 92, C.A.D. 1045, 457 F.2d 991, 994 (1972). As to the evidentiary record, the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP