be, and hereby is, denied without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this Opinion and Order in which to seek leave to amend its complaint according to USCIT Rule 15(a). In the absence of a timely motion for leave to amend the complaint, the court will issue a further order giving notice of the pending dismissal of this action according to USCIT Rule 41(b)(3). 1 . A false statement made upon entry has been held to be material under section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (2006), even though the false statement had the potential to affect a determination to be made by an agency other than U.S. Customs and Border Protection. United States v. Daewoo Int’l (America) Corp., 12 CIT 889, 895, 696 F.Supp. 1534, 1540 (1988) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The exhibits attached to plaintiffs
holding the itc may reasonably interpret the subject to investigation provision to mean that imports covered by a suspension agreement in which an investigation is temporarily terminated are not subject to investigation while under that agreement emphasis added holding that overvaluation of steel imports that did not result in duty underpayment nevertheless was material in disguising actual entered value on which depended the administration of the trigger price mechanism implemented to identify potential situations in which the us department of commerce would selfinitiate an antidumping duty investigation holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report holding that the record here fails to establish the first two elements which the court identified as the duty of care and a breach of that duty and as a result a directed verdict  on the issue of liability was warranted holding that the essential elements of any cause of action are the existence of a legal right in plaintiff with a corresponding duty in defendant coupled with a violation of that duty which results in injury or damages to the plaintiff