Itochu Building Products 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.

• explaining that the requirement of exhaustion may be inappropriate where there is, for example, futility in raising the issue before the agency or a pure question of law
• recognizing the CIT, in its discretion, should assess whether exhaustion is required by considering \the purposes served by requiring exhaustion in the particular case\ and outlining specific, court-recognized exceptions to the exhaustion requirement
• reversing the Trade Court where Commerce referenced and rejected plaintiff's position in the final decision and \nothing ... hint[ed] at something significant that [plaintiff] could have said but did not.\
• finding futility applied where, prior to the preliminary results, the party had “set forth its position in comments, met with eight department officials to discuss the issue, and submitted legal support for its position”
• reversing the Trade Court where Commerce referenced and rejected plaintiff’s position in the final decision and “nothing . . . hint[ed] at something significant that [plaintiff] could have said but did not.”
• “Requiring exhaustion can protect administrative agency authority and promote judicial efficiency.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).