Ams Associates, Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(0(2), where Commerce clarifies existing scope language that is unclear, the imposition of cash deposits can only take effect on or after the initiation of the scope inquiry
• holding that where Commerce clarifies the scope of an existing AD duty order that has an unclear scope, Commerce may not act on a retrospective basis to impose cash deposits before Commerce has resolved that ambiguity
• addressing TUFTA’s predecessor, the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, and noting that the statute “does not provide for recovery other than recovery of the property transferred or its value from one who is, directly or indirectly, a transferee or recipient thereof.”
• \Importers cannot circumvent antidumping orders by contending that their products are outside the scope of existing orders when such orders are clear as to their scope. Our precedent evinces this understanding.\
• “In order to prevent circumvention, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677j(a)-(d) authorize Commerce to expand the scope of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders to reach products that are not covered by the existing scope.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).