首页> 外文期刊>Georgetown Journal of International Law >THE UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN 2010: IS COMMERCE SUFFERING FROM ADVERSE DECISIONS IT WASN'T DOUBLE-COUNTING ON?
【24h】

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN 2010: IS COMMERCE SUFFERING FROM ADVERSE DECISIONS IT WASN'T DOUBLE-COUNTING ON?

机译:美国2010年国际贸易法院:商业是否因双重决策而遭受重创?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

A review of opinions issued by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in 2010 reveal particularly noteworthy developments in the recent antidumping and countervailing duty determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce). First, several 2010 opinions suggest that the CIT, with support from the Federal Circuit, is tightening disciplines on Commerce's application of "adverse facts available" (AFA). These cases demonstrate a more searching scrutiny by the CIT into the circumstances warranting application of AFA, the scope of information for which AFA may be applied, the parties to whom AFA may be applied, and the selected AFA rate itself A true shift in judicial policy would be welcome as the previous lack of standards in this important area possibly encouraged increasing abuse of Commerce's AFA authority. Second, the CIT continued to address the controversy over Commerce's decision to impose both countervailing duties and non-market economy antidumping duties on Chinese goods imported into the United States. In GPX II, the CIT held that Commerce's remand solution to the "double remedy" problem did not adequately address the legal and practical difficulties the court had identified in GPX I. A second remand determination was issued in response to GPX II, and subsequently was appealed to the Federal Circuit. Commerce has refused to change its AD/CVD methodologies in subsequent investigations and administrative reviews involving Chinese exports until the final resolution of GPX in the Federal Circuit. Finally, it is difficult to discern whether the Supreme Court's recently enunciated standards in Twombly and Iqbal have raised the bar to any significant degree in terms of the level of specificity and support required in a CIT complaint in order to withstand a motion to dismiss. However, it is still relatively early in the development of jurisprudence under Twombly, and its limited application may reflect a concomitant enhancement of the quality of complaints as practitioners face the uncertainty of its application.
机译:对美国国际贸易法院(CIT)在2010年发布的意见的审查显示,美国商务部(Commerce)最近对反倾销和反补贴税做出的裁定尤其值得注意。首先,2010年的一些意见表明,CIT在联邦巡回法院的支持下,正在加强商务部对“可利用的不利事实”(AFA)的适用纪律。这些案例表明,CIT对保证适用AFA的情况,适用AFA的信息范围,适用AFA的当事方以及选定的AFA评级本身进行了更为严格的审查,这是司法政策的真正转变会受到欢迎,因为以前在此重要领域缺乏标准可能会鼓励对Commerce AFA权威的滥用增加。其次,CIT继续解决有关商务部决定对进口到美国的中国商品征收反补贴税和非市场经济反倾销税的争议。在GPX II中,CIT认为,商务部针对“双重补救”问题的还款解决方案未能充分解决法院在GPX I中发现的法律和实际困难。针对GPX II做出了第二笔还款裁定,随后做出向联邦巡回上诉。在随后的涉及中国出口的调查和行政复议中,商务部拒绝更改其AD / CVD方法,直到GPX在联邦巡回法院获得最终解决。最后,很难辨别最高法院最近在Twombly和Iqbal中宣布的标准是否在CIT投诉所需的具体程度和支持水平上提高了标准,以抵制驳回动议。但是,在Twombly领导下的法理学发展尚处于相对较早的阶段,其有限的应用可能反映出随着从业者面临其应用的不确定性,投诉质量也随之提高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号