Creswell Trading Co. v. United States

22 Ct. Int'l Trade 612, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 22 C.I.T. 612, 20 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1768, 1998 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 78
United States Court of International Trade·Decided June 24, 1998·No. Court No. 91-01-00012·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

DiCarlo, Senior Judge:

In accordance with the decision (April 16, 1998) and mandate (June 8,1998) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Appeal Nos. 97-1486 and 97-1487, affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part this court’s decision in Creswell Trading Co. v. United States, 21 CIT 487, 964 F. Supp. 409 (May 7, 1997) [hereinafter Creswell V], it is hereby

Ordered that the portion of this court’s opinion and order in Creswell V holding that oceanic shipping costs did not constitute countervailable subsidies is vacated, and it is further

Ordered that Commerce shall recalculate the countervailing subsidy conferred and issue new final results consistent with the opinion of the appellate court. Remand results are due within thirty days of the date this order is entered. It is further

Ordered that any party contesting the results shall file comments or responses within tídrty days of the remand results, after which Commerce will have fifteen days in which to file a reply.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Creswell Trading Co. v. United States, 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 612, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 22 C.I.T. 612, 20 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1768, 1998 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 78 (cit 1998).

22 Ct. Int'l Trade 612 (Creswell Trading Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Creswell Trading Co., Inc. South Bay Foundry 1989 v. United States
24 F. Supp. 2d 318 (Court of International Trade, 1998)