Luoyang Bearing Factory 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.

• pointing out that Commerce has discretion to switch from primary to secondary surrogate data
• refusing to apply plaintiff’s mode of examination that required determining “whether the price paid by a PRC bearing manufacturer to a market-economy supplier was market-driven or representative of market-prices.”
• listing exceptions as (1) futility; (2) a subsequent court decision that may impact the agency's decision; (3) a pure question of law; or (4) when plaintiff had reason to believe the agency would not follow established precedent
• listing exceptions as (1) futility; (2) a subsequent court decision that may impact the agency’s decision; (3) a pure question of law; or (4) when plaintiff had reason to believe the agency would not follow established precedent
• listing exceptions as (1) futility, (2) a subsequent court decision that may impact the agency's decision, (3) a pure question of law, or (4) when plaintiff had no reason to believe the agency would not follow established precedent
• “By its use of the phrase ‘where appropriate,’ Congress vested discretion in the Court to determine the circumstances under which it shall require the exhaustion of administrative remedies.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).