Melamine Chemicals, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
732 F.2d 924 · 1984
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 636 F. Supp. 961 - Ceramica Regiomontanam, S.A. v. United States (1986), American Lamb Company v. The United States, and New Zealand Meat Products Board, Intervenors (1986)
7 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. § 1516A (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1673D (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1677B (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 2504 (Trade Agreements Act of 1979) · 26 U.S.C. § 7421 · 28 U.S.C. § 1581 · 31 U.S.C. § 5151 · 5 U.S.C. § 301
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States · Barr v. United States · United States v. George S. Bush & Co. · Smith-Corona Group v. United States
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of the antidumping law, as its name implies, is to discourage the practice of selling in the United States at LTFV by the imposition of appropriately increased duties. That purpose would be ill-served by application of a mechanical formula to find LTFV sales, and thus a violation of the antidumping laws, where none existed. A finding of LTFV sales based on a margin resulting solely from a factor beyond the control of the exporter would be unreal, unreasonable, and unfair.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Special rules for fair value investigations. For purposes of fair value investigations, manufacturers, exporters, and importers concerned will be expected to act within a reasonable period of time to take into account price differences resulting from sustained changes in prevailing exchange rates. Where prices under consideration are affected by temporary exchange rate fluctuations, no differences between the prices being compared resulting solely from such exchange rate fluctuations will be taken into account in fair value investigations.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Rule for conversion. In determining the existence and amount of any difference between the United States price and the fair value or foreign market value for the purposes of this part or of the Act, any necessary conversion of a foreign currency into its equivalent in United States currency shall be made in accordance with the provisions of section 522 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (31 U.S.C. 372): (1) As of the date of purchase ...; or (2) As of the date of exportation, if the exporter’s sales price is an element of the comparison.”
4 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.