Cases

Barnett, Judge: Plaintiff Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (a.k.a. Jindal Poly Films Ltd. (India) ) ("Plaintiff" or "Jindal") challenges certain aspects of the U.S. Department of Commerce's ("Commerce" or "the agency") final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip ("PET film") from India. See <

Mark A. Barnett, Judge This case having been submitted for decision, and the court, after due deliberation, having rendered an opinion; now, in conformity with that opinion it is hereby ORDERED that the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from India, see Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and S

Slip Op. 25-98 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE JINDAL POLY FILMS LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge Court No. 24-00053 Defendant, and DUPONT TEIJIN FILMS, ET AL., Defendant-Intervenors. OPINIO

Slip Op. 20-99 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE JINDAL POLY FILMS LIMITED OF INDIA, Plaintiff, v. Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge UNITED STATES, Defendant, Court No. 19-00043 and DUPONT TEIJIN FILMS, MITSUBISHI POLYESTER FILM, INC., AND SKC, INC., Defendant-Intervenors.

Slip Op. 20-54 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE JINDAL POLY FILMS LIMITED OF INDIA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge Defendant, Court No. 19-00050 and DUPONT TEIJIN FILMS ET AL., Defendant- Intervenors. OPINION AND ORDER [Sustaining Commerce’s fin

Slip Op. 19-91 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE JINDAL POLY FILMS LIMITED OF INDIA (A.K.A. JINDAL POLY FILMS, LTD. (INDIA)), Plaintiff, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Judge v. Court No. 18-00038 UNITED STATES, Defendant. JUDGMENT This case having been submitted for decision, and the co

OPINION AND ORDER RESTANI, Judge: This matter is before the court on plaintiffs DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), Inc.’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) motion for judgment on the agency record pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.2. Plaintiffs challenge certain findings in the U.S. Department of

Slip Op. 20–  UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE __________________________________________ : WILMAR TRADING PTE LTD., : PT WILMAR BIOENERGI INDONESIA, and : WILMAR OLEO NORTH AMERICA LLC, : : Plaintiffs, : : and

Slip Op. 20-4 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI 9(7,&$5(7$ù Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge Plaintiff, AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, Consol. Court No. 19-00056 et al., PUBLIC VERSION Consolidated Plaintiffs,

Slip Op. 20 - 139 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE DONG-A STEEL COMPANY, Plaintiff, and KUKJE STEEL CO., LTD., Consolidated Plaintiff, v. Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge Consol. Court No. 19-00104 UNITED STATES,

Slip Op. 20-84 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE COALITION OF AMERICAN FLANGE PRODUCERS, Plaintiff, Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge Court No. 18-00225 v. PUBLIC VERSION UNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION