MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. U.S.

No. 00-1058, 00-1060.

243 F.3d 1301 (2001)

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. and LG Semicon America, Inc. and LG Semicon, Co., Ltd. (now known as Hyundai Electronics America, Inc. and Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd.), Defendants-Cross Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: March 7, 2001.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Gilbert B. Kaplan, Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Washinton, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Michael D. Esch, Paul W. Jameson, and Cris R. Revaz.

Michele D. Lynch, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief was David M. Cohen, Director. Of counsel were Velta A. Melnbrencis, Department of Justice; and John D. McInerney, Berniece A. Browne, and Patrick V. Gallagher, Jr., Attorneys, Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

Michael P. House, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-cross appellants. With him on the brief was Raymond P. Paretzky.

Joseph W. Dorn, King & Spalding, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae, The Southern Tier Cement Committee. With him on the brief were Michael P. Mabile, and Dean A. Pinkert.

Herbert C. Shelley, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae SKF USA, Inc. With him on the brief was Alice A. Kipel.

Neil R. Ellis, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae LG Semicon Ameica, Inc. and LG Semicon Co, Ltd., etc. With him on the brief were Elizabeth C. Hafner, and Susan M. Mathews.

Kathleen W. Cannon, Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for amici curiae Allegheny Ludlum Corp., et al. With her on the brief were David A. Hartquist, Paul C. Rosenthal, and Michael J. Coursey.

Before CLEVENGER, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.


DYK, Circuit Judge.

DECISION

This case presents important questions concerning the interpretation of the 1994 amendments to the Tariff Act of 1930 ("Act"), codified in the United States Code in Chapter 4 of Title 19. We conclude that the amendments are ambiguous as to the scope of the indirect selling expenses to be deducted under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(D) (1999).1 Because we...

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