Case: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., plaintiffs v. United States, defendant
Abbreviation: Samsung Electronics Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1995-03-16
Docket Number: Consolidated Court No. 91-04-00327
Citation: 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 384
Volume: 19
Reporter: United States Court of International Trade Reports
Court: United States Court of International Trade
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., plaintiffs v. United States, defendant
Judges: 
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., plaintiffs v. United States, defendant
Consolidated Court No. 91-04-00327
(Dated March 16, 1995)
Frederick L. Ikenson, P.C. (Frederick L. Ikenson and Larry Hampel) for plaintiff Zenith Electronics Corporation.
Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott (Paul D. Cullen, Jeffrey S. Beckington eaidMary T. Staley) for plaintiff-intervenors Independent Radionic Workers of America, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers (AFL-CIO) and the Industrial Union Department (AFL-CIO).
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Velta A. Melnbrencis), PriyaAlagiri, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of counsel, for defendant.
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. (Sukhan Kim, Warren E. Connelly, P.C. and Margaret L.H. Png) for defendant-intervenors Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Opinion:
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).
Samsung'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.