Techsnabexport, Ltd. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States (1992), 841 F. Supp. 1255 - Sigma Corp. v. United States (1993)
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. § 1677 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 1581 · 28 U.S.C. § 2637
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Perry v. Sindermann · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Liquidation in accordance with determination. Unless such liquidation is enjoined by the court under paragraph (2) of this subsection, entries of merchandise of the character covered by a determination of [Commerce] * * * contested under [19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)] shall be liquidated in accordance with the determination of [Commerce] * * * if they are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or before the date of publication in the Federal Register by [Commerce] * * * of a notice of a decision of the United States Court of International Trade, or of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, not in harmony with that determination. Such notice of a decision shall be published within ten days from the date of the issuance of the court decision. (2) Injunctive relief. In the case of a determination described in [19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)] by [Commerce] * * * the United States Court of International Trade may enjoin the liquidation of some or all entries of merchandise covered by a determination of [Commerce] * * * upon a request by an interested party for such relief and a proper showing that the requested relief should be granted under the circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]his action is similar to Carnation and [Asociación Colombiana ] in that plaintiffs challenge the legality of the [antidumping] proceedings rather than particular determinations within the proceedings, and demand to be relieved of the obligation to participate in proceedings they find statutorily and constitutionally infirm.... Stare decisis counsels adherence to prior determinations of this court which hold that jurisdiction exists to hear challenges to the validity of antidumping proceedings prior to their completion if the opportunity for full relief may be lost by awaiting the final determination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“), 7 CIT 133 , 135, 583 F.Supp. 607, 610 (1984) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.