International Trade Law News /title <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" ""> <html xmlns="" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <meta name="verify-v1" content="6kFGcaEvnPNJ6heBYemQKQasNtyHRZrl1qGh38P0b6M=" /> <head> <title>International Trade Law News

« Home | Chi Mak's Brother Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison » | Former U.S. Army Employee Arrested for Disclosing ... » | Bill Introduced in Congress Would Authorize AES Li... » | DDTC Publishes FAQs and Guidance on Agreements » | Vessel Carrying Chinese Arms for Zimbabwe Governme... » | Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Man... » | Treasury Issues Proposed CFIUS Regulations » | OFAC Posts Scoreboard of Penalty Cases » | Free Trade Agreements in the News » | Senate Holds Hearing on the Iran Counter-Prolifera... » 

April 22, 2008 

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Antidumping Appeals

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted petitions for certiorari to consider two related cases involving the interpretation of U.S. antidumping law during the Court's term beginning in October 2008. It is very rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider trade-related cases and it is even more rare for the Supreme Court to consider an appeal in an antidumping case. Both cases involve issues arising from the antidumping investigations on low-enriched uranium from France.

The question presented in U.S. v. Eurodif S.A., et al. (Docket 07-1059) is:

Whether the court of appeals [for the Federal Circuit] erred in rejecting Commerce’s conclusion that foreign merchandise is “sold in the United States” within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1673 when a purchaser in the United States obtains foreign merchandise by providing monetary payments and raw materials to a foreign entity that performs a major manufacturing process in which substantial value is added to the raw materials, thereby creating a new and different article of merchandise that is delivered to the U.S. purchaser.

The question presented in USEC, Inc., et al. v. Eurodif S.A., et al. (Docket 07-1078) is:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred in failing to accord Chevron deference to that construction, when a contrary one will prevent the Commerce Department from applying the antidumping law to imports causing or threatening material injury to a domestic industry.

The Washington Post article containing background information on these cases can be found here.




Subscribe to our confidential mailing list

Mobile Version

Search Trade Law News

International Trade and Compliance Jobs

Jobs from Indeed




  • This Site is presented for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed when you use this Site. Do not consider the Site to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney. The information on this Site may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While we try to revise this Site on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed on this Site are the opinions of the individual author.
  • The content on this Site may be reproduced and/or distributed in whole or in part, provided that its source is indicated as "International Trade Law News,".
  • ©2003-2015. All rights reserved.

Translate This Site

Powered by Blogger