record supports those findings. See, e.g., CR at 14, 18, 21-22, 27, 29, 35, 37, 55, 78-79. See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. United States, 17 CIT 980, 986 (1993) (“[Relevant case law has consistently held that the TAA statute does not apply when a com pany closes because economic factors make continued operations impractical rather than due to direct import competition”). Further, imports of like product are proscribed by ITAR regulation and law, and there is nothing in the record from which to infer imports in contravention thereof. The brevity of this opinion does not reflect the commendable briefing of the parties, but in light of the foregoing, the court must consider the plaintiffs’ other contentions as without merit. See Chen v. Chao, 32 CIT_,_, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1292, 1296 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Because the record supports Labor’s finding
holding prebarreca that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the absence of actual malice where investigation revealed that allegations were unfounded recognizing that issues are functionally the same if one action is dispositive of the other recognizing that investigation into other criteria of section 2272a2a unnecessary if adequate investigation shows one criterion lacking holding that where the contract affirmatively shows the parties intent to charge one party with a duty of care actionable negligence may be predicated upon that contractual duty recognizing that postverdict investigation seriously disrupts finality of process