Delverde, Srl and Delverde Usa, Inc. v. United States v. Borden, Inc., Hershey Foods Corp. And Gooch Foods, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing CVD decision where record indicated that subsidy recipient passed no benefit to successor in interest of pasta factory
• vacating and remanding because “Commerce’s methodology for de- termining whether Delverde received a countervail[able] subsidy [was] invalid as being inconsistent with 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5)”
• vacating and remanding because \Commerce's methodology for determining whether Delverde received a countervail[able] subsidy [was] invalid as being inconsistent with 19 U.S.C. § 1677 (5)\
• “the statute clearly requires that in order to find that a person received a subsidy, Commerce [must] determine that that person received from a government both [pecuniary assistance] and benefit”
• “Because we hold Commerce’s methodology to be invalid under the amended Tariff Act ix’respective of the WTO’s decision, we do not consider the relevance of that decision except to note that it is not inconsistent with our holding”
• “[T]he Tariff Act requires that Commerce make such a determination by examining the particular facts and circumstances of the sale and determining whether [the company] directly or indirectly received both a financial contribution and benefit from a government.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).