RENESAS TECHNOLOGY AMERICA V US, No. 04-1473 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1473, -1474 RENESAS TECHNOLOGY AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, and MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ DECIDED: July 1, 2005 __________________________ Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. The government appeals the final decision of the United States Court of International Trade granting summary judgment to Renesas Technology America, Inc. ("the appellee"). See Renesas Tech. Am., Inc. v. United States, No. 00-00114 (Ct. Int'l Trade Aug. 18, 2003) ("Renesas"). The relevant facts and issues raised by the parties in this case are materially indistinguishable from those in Nissei Sangyo Am., Ltd. v. United States, No. 04-1469, -1492 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2005) ("Nissei Sangyo"). As discussed in Nissei Sangyo, this court's decisions in Consolidated Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Consolidated Bearings I") and Consolidated Bearings Co. v. United States, No. 04-1556 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2005) ("Consolidated Bearings II") foreclose the appellee's arguments. In those cases, this court held that an unreviewed reseller is not statutorily entitled to the manufacturer's review rate and that the Department of Commerce ("Commerce") has consistently liquidated unreviewed entries at the cash deposit rate. Therefore the instructions from Commerce in this case ordering Customs to liquidate appellee's entries at the cash deposit rate were in accordance with law and were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. In accordance with the decisions in Consolidated Bearings I, Consolidated Bearings II, and Nissei Sangyo, we must reverse the decision of the Court of International Trade. 04-1473, -1474 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.