Kawasaki Steel Corp. 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 respondent failed to provide a full explanation why requested information could not be submitted and failed to suggest alternatives for providing such information where the respondent simply asked to be excused from answering a section of the questionnaire
• noting that plaintiff, “a sophisticated and continuing player in the market, never suggested alternatives, never requested help from Commerce, and provided an unconvincing account of why it could not comply fully”
• upholding use of AFA where respondent failed to use its best efforts to persuade its U.S. affiliate, a petitioner in the review, to supply requested information necessary to determine CEP
• noting Commerce's \general practice of attributing failure of an affiliate to the respondent.\
• upholding Commerce's determination to apply partial AFA to missing information that the respondent's affiliate refused to provide when substantial evidence showed that the respondent had means to induce cooperation from its affiliate, to wit, the ability to: (1
• “It has been well established by the court that a ‘mere recitation of the relevant [AFA] standard is not enough for Commerce to satisfy its obligation under the statute.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).