Samsung Electronics Co. v. United States

Court of International Trade

Samsung Electronics Co. v. United States

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 384

CourtUnited States Court of International Trade

DecidedMarch 16, 1995

DocketConsolidated Court No. 91-04-00327

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 384 (Samsung Electronics Co. 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

Samsung Electronics Co. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 384 (cit 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Restani, Judge:

This matter is before the court following a remand determination. Remand was ordered in Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 94-149 (Sept. 21, 1994).

The issues raised by plaintiffs relating to a cap on the adjustment to U.S. price for VAT and belated correction of clerical errors, have been resolved against plaintiff. See Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 95-38 (Mar. 13, 1995).

[385]*385Samsung’s challenge to Commerce’s treatment of forwarding expense is also rejected. See Independent Radionic Workers of America v. United States, Slip Op. 95-45 (Mar. 15, 1995).

As the court held in Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 95-46 (Mar. 15, 1995), Commerce is directed to treat Samsung’s warranty expenses as direct selling expenses for purposes of the circumstances of sales adjustment in this case.

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