green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
35.4 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases ·
"Dorbest II"
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
CS Wind Vietnam Co. v. United States
But see Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 32 CIT 185 , 198-99, 547 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1333 (2008) (accepting Commerce’s complete rejection of Infodrive data based on substantially incomplete reporting of imports and inconsistent units of measure).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. v. United States
dorbest ii
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
China Processed Food Import & Export Co. v. United States
t is not for the court to decide between two, equally plausible factual interpretations. as such, the court cannot find unreasonable commerce's determination.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co. v. United States
dorbest ii
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
dorbest ii
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States
(2×)
USCIT R. 42(a). 10 However, “consolidation ‘does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.’ ” Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 32 CIT 185 , 220-21, 547 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1351 (2008) (quoting Johnson v. Manhattan Ry.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
International Fidelity Insurance v. Sweet Little Mexico Corp.
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 547 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1351 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); Silver Reed America, Inc. v. United States, 600 F.Supp. 852, 858 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1985); see also McKenzie v. United States, 678 F.2d 571, 574 (5th Cir.1982) (citing Johnson v. Manhattan Ry.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States
AFMC Br. at 24 (citing Dorbest, Ltd. v. United States, 547 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1327 (CIT 2008)) (“Dorbest II”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Home Products International, Inc. v. United States
Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 556 F.Supp.2d 1338, 1340 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2008) (same); Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 547 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (same); Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 491 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1232-33 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (same); Goldlink Indus.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co. v. United States
If Respondents “believed that the ... issue was relevant to the Final Results” following the adverse decision by Commerce in the Preliminary Results, they “needed to include that issue in [their] case brief, as required by the regulation.” Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, — CIT —, —, 547 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1344 (2008) (quoting Carpenter Tech.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jinan Yipin Corp. Ltd. v. United States
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 32 CIT -, -, 547 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1348 (2008).
examined
Cited "see"
Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See generally Dorbest II, 32 CIT at -, 547 F.Supp.2d at 1325-30.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sgl Carbon LLC v. United States
See also Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 32 CIT 185 , -, 547 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1348 (2008), aff'd in part, vacated in part, and rev’d *1366 in part, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir.2010) (emphasizing that, where allegation of ministerial error is not timely raised, Commerce in its discretion nevertheless may — but is not required to — correct the error). 15 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pakfood Public Co. Ltd. v. United States
See, e.g., Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, — CIT —, 547 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1334 (2008) (rejecting plaintiff’s contention that "it did not have sufficient time" to comment on a draft redetermination proposed by Commerce, because plaintiff "d[id] not allege specific prejudice from having such a short time to comment"), aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thyssenkrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.P.A. v. United States
NTN Bearing emphasized the tension inherent in administrative determinations between finality and accuracy, both generally and in the context of the correction of ministerial errors in antidumping duty investigations. 74 F.3d at 1208 ; see also Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 547 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1348 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (emphasizing that late-raised clerical errors may, but are not required to, be corrected at the discretion of Commerce).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United States
Compare Dorbest II, — CIT at -, 547 F.Supp.2d at 1328-30 (analyzing plaintiffs’ argument that the regression was heteroscedastic); Dorbest I, 30 CIT at 1710-12, 462 F.Supp.2d at 1296-98 (addressing plaintiffs’ arguments that the regression model is distorted given the existence of a non-zero y-intercept).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NORSK HYDRO CANADA INC., Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant, and U.S. Magnesium, LLC, Defendant-Intervenor.
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant, and U.S. Magnesium, LLC, Defendant-Intervenor.
03-00828.
United States Court of International Trade.
Feb 26, 2008.
547 F. Supp. 2d 1321
JUDGMENT
DONALD C. POGUE, Judge.
Upon consideration of the Department of Commerce remand results filed in response to the Court's order of November 28, 2007. Plaintiff's comments, and all other pertinent papers, it is hereby
ORDERED that the remand results are sustained, and it is further
ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of the United States.