Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts 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 the agency may not base its determination on “mere conjecture or supposition”
• recognizing that § 1673d does not apply to NME proceedings
• explaining that an agency’s interpretation need only represent a “reasonable construction of the statute,” not necessarily “the most reasonable interpretation”
• stating that “[a]n overriding purpose of Commerce’s administration of antidumping laws is to calculate dumping margins as accurately as possible”
• noting that 19 U.S.C. §1673d(c)(5)(B) and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103 316 (1994
• noting that in the NME context, “[t]he separate rate for eligible non-mandatory respondents is generally calculated following the statutory method for determining the ‘all others rate’ under [19 U.S.C.] § 1673d(c)(5)(A)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).