Justin Moore v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting “the contention that Commerce should consider other factors (ie., factors other than price) in determining comparability”
• excluding free samples from U.S. sales because they provided no consideration in either the home or U.S. markets
• rejecting “the contention that Commerce should consider other factors (i.e., factors other than price) in determining comparability”
• remanding for Commerce to grant the adjustment in the 1992-93 AFB Review
• upholding change in methodology for reallocating U.S. selling expenses in fourth administrative review based on rationale that new methodology provides a value that is not subject to potential manipulation by parties despite fact that Commerce used different methodology in earlier reviews
• “The evidence on the record does not establish differences in selling expenses at [different LOTs] because NTN’s allocation methodology ... does not reasonably quantify the expenses incurred at each [LOT]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).