Consolidated Bearings Company, Plaintiff-Cross 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 the case did not present a purely legal question because one of cross-appellant’s arguments concerned divergence from past administrative practice
• holding that if “Commerce acted differently in this case than it has consistently acted in similar circumstances without reasonable explanation, then Commerce’s actions will have been arbitrary””
• indicating that Commerce issued the liquidation instructions in question there during the years 1997 and 1998
• stating that section 1675(a)(2)(C) “neither requires nor precludes Commerce from applying [administrative review] results to entries outside the review”
• determining that the pure legal question exception could not apply when the court would have to assess Commerce’s justifications for its practice
• stating that an action challenging Commerce's liquidation instructions is a challenge to the 'administration and enforcement' of Commerce's final results and the Court of International Trade may review the instructions pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1581(i)(4)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).