Pg. 1 of 18 • 173 results
Protest No. 4196-04-100105; 19 USC §§ 1504(a), 1514(a), 1515(c); 19 C.F.R. §§ 174.24; International Trading Co. v United States, 281 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Fujitsu Gen. America, Inc. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000), aff’d 283 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Pagoda Trading Co. v. United States, 617 F. Supp. 96 (Aug. 27, 1985); Rheem Metalurgica S/A v. United States, 951 F.Supp. 241 (Dec. 20, 1996), aff’d by 160 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Protest/AFR-2002-04-100489; ELG Haniel Trading Corp.; 19 U.S.C. §§ 1514(a) and 1520(c)(1); Aviall of Texas, Inc. v. The United States, 70 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Trade Act of 2002, § 4101, et. seq., 116 Stat. 950, Pub. L. 107-210 (Aug. 6, 2002); 7202.41.0000, HTSUS
Protest No. 2704-02-102728; 19 U.S.C. 1514; Antidumping Duties
AFR protest No. 3001-02-102311; 19 U.S.C. 1671b(d)(3); 19 U.S.C. 1673b(d); countervailing duties; antidumping duties; gap period
Protest No. 2704-02-102691; 19 U.S.C. 1514; Antidumping DutiesDear Port Director:
Protest No. 3001-02-100342; Antidumping Duties; 19 U.S.C. 1514; 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e); 19 U.S.C. 1504(d); 19 U.S.C. 1677gDear Mr. Jensen:
Petition number 4601-02-200606; Internal Advice; 19 CFR 177.11; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; Red Oak HRSG Piping Materials; Red Oak HRSG Project; 19 USC 1520(c)(1); Mistake of Fact; ITT Corp. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1384, 1387 (Fed Cir. 1994); Hambro Automotive Corporation v. United States, 66 CCPA 113, 118, C.A.D. 1231, 603 F.2d 850 (1979); Concentric Pumps, Ltd., v. United States, 10 CIT 505, 508, 643 F Supp. 623 (1986); C.J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 17, 22; C.D. 4327, 336 F. Supp. 1395, 1399 (1972), aff’d 61 CCPA 90, C.A.D. 1129, 499 F.2d 1277 (1974); PPG Industries, Inc. v. United States, 4 CIT 143, 147-148 (1982); Taban Co. V. United States, 960 F. Supp. 326, 334-35 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1997); Zaki Corp. v. United States, 960 F. Supp. 350, 359-360 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1997); Bar Bea Truck Leasing Co., Inc. v. United States, 5 CIT 124, 126 (1983).Dear Sir/Madam:
Protest No. 1101-02-100476; 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c)(1); classification; Arthur L. Franklin d/b/a Health Technologies Network v. United States, 135 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001) rev’d Arthur L. Franklin v. United States, 289 F. 3d 753 (Fed. Cir. 2002); HQ 963265 (March 12, 2002); HQ 228021 (July 9, 1998); HQ 227931 (April 8, 1998); HQ 223478 (February 21, 1992); HQ 222610(November 7, 1990); HQ 302144 (ORR Ruling 75-0026)(January 24, 1975); Executone Information Systems v. United States, 96 F. 3d 1383(Fed. Cir. 1996)
Internal Advice; Protest No. 3901-01-100287; JCM, Ltd. d/b/a Racconto; 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a); HQ 229413 (March 12, 2002); HQ 225382 (July 3, 1995); Mitsubishi Electronic America Inc. v. United States, 44 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1994); ABC International Traders, Inc. v. United States, 19 CIT 787 (1995); American Hi-Fi International, Inc. v. United States, 936 F. Supp. 1032 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); HQ 227653 (October 31, 1997); HQ 229413(March 12, 2002); HQ 226285 (October 10, 1997)
Protest No. 3901-00-101571; Antidumping Duties; 19 U.S.C. 1514; 19 U.S.C. 1504; 19 U.S.C. 1677(25); 19 U.S.C. 1673e(a)(2); 19 CFR 351.202(b)(5); 19 CFR 351.225(c)(1)(i)
Pg. 1 of 18 • 173 results