TORRINGTON CO. v. U.S.

Nos. 95-1210, 95-1211.

82 F.3d 1039 (1996)

The TORRINGTON COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, v. KOYO SEIKO CO., LTD. and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A., Defendants/Cross-Appellants, v. NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corporation and NTN Corporation, and NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 23, 1996.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James R. Cannon, Jr., Stewart & Stewart, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Terence P. Stewart and John M. Breen.

Velta A. Melnbrencis, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General and David M. Cohen, Director. Also on the brief were Stephen J. Powell, Chief Counsel for Import Administration, Berniece A. Browne, Senior Counsel, Mark A. Barnett and Thomas H. Fine, Attorneys-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, of counsel. Of counsel was David J. Ross, Kazumune V. Kano, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, Chicago, Illinois, argued for defendants-appellees. Donald J. Unger, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, Chicago, Illinois, was on the brief for defendants-appellees. Of counsel were Cindy H. Chan and Jesse M. Gerson.

Neil R. Ellis, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Washington, DC, argued for defendants/cross-appellants. With him on the brief were Peter O. Suchman and Susan M. Matthews.

Robert A. Lipstein, Matthew P. Jaffe and Grace W. Lawson, Lipstein, Jaffee & Lawson, Washington, DC, were on the brief for defendants-appellees.

Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and SCHALL, Circuit Judge.


SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

This case arises under the antidumping laws. It presents us with three issues. The first issue is whether the Department of Commerce ("Commerce") may lawfully not assess antidumping duties upon merchandise which is imported into the United States by a company related to the foreign manufacturer and which then is exported to a third country, when no sale of the merchandise takes place in the United States. The second issue is whether Commerce...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases