Former Employees of Delco Systems Operations v. United States

Court of International Trade

Former Employees of Delco Systems Operations v. United States

12 Ct. Int'l Trade 415, 685 F. Supp. 1263, 12 C.I.T. 415, 1988 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 98

CourtUnited States Court of International Trade

DecidedMay 17, 1988

DocketCourt No. 86-12-01545

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Ct. Int'l Trade 415 (Former Employees of Delco Systems Operations v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Former Employees of Delco Systems Operations v. United States, 12 Ct. Int'l Trade 415, 685 F. Supp. 1263, 12 C.I.T. 415, 1988 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 98 (cit 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion and Order

Restani, Judge:

This matter is before the court following a determination of the Secretary of Labor on remand. The factual background will not be repeated here as it is fully set out in the court’s previous decision. Former Employees of Delco Sys. v. United States, 11 CIT 825, Slip Op. 87-122 (Nov. 5, 1987).

Pursuant to the court’s direction, defendant made further inquiries as to the nature of the alleged increased imports. The supplemental record supports the determination that the imported gun turrets were necessary components of certain light armored vehicles (lav’s) and were imported in an assembled condition with the lav’s. Thus, they cannot be considered to be separate imported [416]*416items. The record indicates that no gun turrets are sold domestically. Accordingly, the Secretary determined that imports of gun turrets did not increase as a result of closing of the plant where plaintiffs were employed.

Plaintiffs dispute this conclusion and offer further evidence to the court to support their own conclusion. The court, however, may not consider such information as it was not part of the record before the agency. Defendant’s motion to strike these documents is granted. Plaintiffs see many ills, which perhaps should be remedied, but, for the most part, these matters are not the subject of a review of denial of eligibility for trade adjustment assistance.

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

Opinion and Order

Restani, Judge:

This matter is before the court following a determination of the Secretary of Labor on remand. The factual background will not be repeated here as it is fully set out in the court’s previous decision. Former Employees of Delco Sys. v. United States, 11 CIT 825, Slip Op. 87-122 (Nov. 5, 1987).

Pursuant to the court’s direction, defendant made further inquiries as to the nature of the alleged increased imports. The supplemental record supports the determination that the imported gun turrets were necessary components of certain light armored vehicles (lav’s) and were imported in an assembled condition with the lav’s. Thus, they cannot be considered to be separate imported [416]*416items. The record indicates that no gun turrets are sold domestically. Accordingly, the Secretary determined that imports of gun turrets did not increase as a result of closing of the plant where plaintiffs were employed.

Plaintiffs dispute this conclusion and offer further evidence to the court to support their own conclusion. The court, however, may not consider such information as it was not part of the record before the agency. Defendant’s motion to strike these documents is granted. Plaintiffs see many ills, which perhaps should be remedied, but, for the most part, these matters are not the subject of a review of denial of eligibility for trade adjustment assistance.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Ct. Int'l Trade 415, 685 F. Supp. 1263, 12 C.I.T. 415, 1988 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/former-employees-of-delco-systems-operations-v-united-states-cit-1988.