Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Co. 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 Commerce’s choice of a particular invoice date over potential alternatives involved factual components and was therefore not within the regulation’s meaning of “ministerial”
• reviewing remand determination for compliance with the court’s remand order and applying the standard of review set out in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)
• reviewing remand determination for compliance with the court's remand order and applying the standard of review set out in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)
• finding Commerce had “adequately distinguished and reasonably explained its departure” from previous case when agency “demonstrated several key distinguishing facts between the two cases”
• “Commerce acted within its discretion, and in compliance with the agency’s own regulations, to limit its remand consideration to the timely-submitted arguments and evidence.”
• “Agencies have a responsibility to administer their statutorily accorded powers fairly and rationally, which includes not treating similar situations in dissimilar ways.” (quotation and alteration marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).