Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
12 opinions for “Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd. v. United States”
Hubscher Ribbon Corp., Ltd. v. United Statespublic domain
GORDON, Judge: This action involves an administrative review conducted by the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of the antidumping duty order covering narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from Taiwan. See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan, 11 Fed.Reg. 72,825 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 6, 2012) (final results admin, review
Hubscher Ribbon Corp. v. United Statespublic domain
OPINION GORDON, Judge: This action involves an administrative review conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of the anti-dumping duty order covering narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from the People’s Republic of China. See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People’s Republic of China, 78 Fed
Morex Ribbon Corp. v. United Statespublic domain
OPINION Gordon, Judge: This action involves the third administrative review conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of the antidumping duty order covering narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (“NWR”) from Taiwan. See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan, 80 Fed. Reg. 19,635 (Dep’t of Commerce Apr. 13, 2015) (final re
OPINION EATON, Judge: Before the court is' the United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce” or “the Department”) Third Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand pertaining to the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering floor-standing metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the
Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United Statespublic domain
OPINION GORDON, Judge: This action involves an administrative review conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of the anti-dumping duty order covering polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from Taiwan. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Taiwan, 76 Fed.Reg. 76,941 (Dep’t of Commerce D
Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Indus. SA v. United Statespublic domain
Slip Op. 23-65 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE CORINTH PIPEWORKS PIPE INDUSTRY SA and CPW AMERICA CO., Plaintiffs, v. Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge UNITED STATES, Defendant, Court No. 22-00063 and THE AMERICAN LINE PIPE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION TRADE COMMITTEE,
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. v. United Statespublic domain
OPINION and ORDER EATON, Judge: Before the court are the objections of plaintiff Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Since Hardware”) to the United States Department of Commerce’s (“the Department” or “Commerce”) Fourth Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Second Corrected Version) dated June 18, 2015 (ECF Dkt. No. 202-2
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. v. United Statespublic domain
OPINION and ORDER EATON, Senior Judge: Before the court are the United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce” or the “Department”) final results, dated October 30, 2013, following remand of its antidumping review of Floor-Standing, Metalr-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 74 Fed.Reg. 11,085 (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 16, 2009) (final results of
Papierfabrik August Koehler SE v. United Statespublic domain
OPINION TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge: Plaintiff Papierfabrik August Koehler SE (“Koehler”) moves for judgment on the agency record contesting the determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany: Final Results of An-tidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011, 78 Fe
Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co. v. United Statespublic domain
OPINION POGUE, Senior Judge: In this action, Plaintiff Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., successor in interest to Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Grobest”), challenges the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) decision not to terminate a court-ordered re-examination of Grobes
OPINION and ORDER EATON, Judge: Before the court is the Department of Commerce’s (the “Department” or “Commerce”) Second Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing metal top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). Fina
875 F.Supp. 1022 (1995) ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ADMINISTRATIA ASIGURARILOR De STAT, et al., Defendants. No. 86 Civ. 2365 (DNE). United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 19, 1995. *1023 Michael Luskin, Gelberg & Adams, New York City, for Allstate Ins. Co. Bernard Hubscher, Bernard Hubscher,