U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 169— COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE PROCEDURE

28 U.S.C. § 2645

Decisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A final decision of the Court of International Trade in a contested civil action or a decision granting or refusing a preliminary injunction shall be supported by—(1) a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; or(2) an opinion stating the reasons and facts upon which the decision is based.(b) After the Court of International Trade has rendered a judgment, the court may, upon the motion of a party or upon its own motion, amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the decision and judgment accordingly. A motion of a party or the court shall be made not later than thirty days after the date of entry of the judgment.(c) A decision of the Court of International Trade is final and conclusive, unless a retrial or rehearing is granted pursuant to section 2646 of this title or an appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the Court of International Trade within the time and in the manner prescribed for appeals to United States courts of appeals from the United States district courts.(Added Pub. L. 96–417, title III, § 301, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1738; amended Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 141, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 45.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1982—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “is taken to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the Court of International Trade within the time and in the manner prescribed for appeals to United States courts of appeals from the United States district courts” for “is taken to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals within the time and in the manner provided in section 2601 of this title”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: The Timken Co. v. The United States, & China Nat'l Mach. & Equip. Imp. & Exp. Corp., 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The Timken Co. v. The United States, & China Nat'l Mach. & Equip. Imp. & Exp. Corp., 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “This is the meaning that is used, for example, in 28 U.S.C. § 2645 (c) (1982), which states that [a] decision of the Court of International Trade is final and conclusive, unless a retrial or rehearing is granted .”
Robert W Szymczak, II v. Laura M Kane, 585 S.E.2d 349 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 2255 (decisions in certain habeas corpus proceedings); 28 U.S.C. § 2645 (civil decisions of the Court of International Trade); 42 U.”
Belfont Sales Corp. v. United States, 698 F. Supp. 916 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). · cites it 4× “Defendant’s motion states that it is predicated upon CIT Rule 59 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2645 and 2646. Subparagraph (b) of the rule requires that a motion for rehearing be served and filed not later than 30 days after entry of a judgment.”
Libas, Ltd. v. United States, 314 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Libas argued that 28 U.S.C. § 2645 (a), and our precedent construing that provision, requires a more extensive statement of factual findings and conclusions of law than the explanation provided by the court.”
Am. Grape Growers All. for Fair Trade v. United States, 622 F. Supp. 295 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985). · cites it 4× “The defendant-intervenor Banfi Products Corporation goes further and sees a statutory bar to the granting of the motion in the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 2645 . The Court finds no merit in these contentions.”
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 2× “Nor do we find it credible to say that a CIT decision does not exist until the time for appeal expires; such an interpretation is contrary to both the common meaning of the term and its use in statutes such as 28 U.”
Yancheng Baolong Biochemical Prods. Co. v. United States, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 2× “The Federal Circuit reasoned that “final” under § 1516a(e) must be given the same meaning as “final” under 28 U.S.C. § 2645 (c), which states that “[a] decision of the [CIT] is final and conclusive, unless retrial or rehearing is granted .”
AIMCOR v. United States, 141 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “” 28 U.S.C. § 2645 (a) (1994). Minasligas takes the position that the court’s opinion after remand, AIMCOR v.”
United States v. Bradley, 882 F.3d 390 (2d Cir. 2018). “Various circuits have considered the nature of forfeiture proceedings in different contexts.”
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “2004), is misplaced, as that footnote simply explains that an appeal to this court prevents the decision of the Court of International Trade from becoming “final and conclusive” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2645 (c). It does not suggest that the fact that the court’s decision is…”
United States v. Keith W. Atkinson, an Individual, & St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 748 F.2d 659 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “Moreover, the difference in rule language becomes irrelevant in light of the special statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2645 (c), governing the effect of CIT decisions.”
Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. The United States, 880 F.2d 401 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “28 U.S.C. § 2645 (c). The latter does not.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 2645(c) — 1 case
Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.