Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
298 F.3d 1330 · 2002
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States (2003), Zhejiang Dunan Hetian Metal Co. v. United States (2011)
19 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1675 (§ 751 of the Clean Air - Clean Jobs Act) · 19 U.S.C. § 1677 (§ 771 of the Clean Air - Clean Jobs Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1295
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Atlantic Sugar, Ltd. v. United States · Rhone Poulenc Inc Sa v. United States Pq
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Congress could not have intended for Commerce’s discretion to include the ability to select unreasonably high rates with no relationship to the respondent’s actual dumping margin. Obviously a higher adverse margin creates a stronger deterrent, but Congress tempered deterrent value with the corroboration requirement. It could only have done so to prevent the petition rate (or other adverse inference rate), when unreasonable, from prevailing and to block any temptation by Commerce to overreach reality in seeking to maximize deterrence.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the administering authority or the Commission determines that a response to a request for information under this subtitle does not comply with the request, the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be) shall promptly inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion of investigations or reviews under this subtitle.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The burden of production [belongs] to the party in possession of the necessary information.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.