by the Court of International Trade, in a challenge to agency anti-dumping determinations, on a USCIT 56.2 motion for judgment on an agency record). 4 . Although various cases since Banknote have repeated its dicta equating judgment under RCFC 56.1 with summary judgment, none of those cases have applied that reasoning. As in Banknote, in each instance the decisions turned on pure questions of law. See, e.g., Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2004) (deciding only "whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law in the several rulings that the government challenges on appeal”); NVT Techs., Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1153, 1159 (Fed.Cir.2004) (reviewing the trial court decision "as a matter of law”); Wagner v. United States, 365 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Galen Medical Associates, Inc. v. United
recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding the erroneous admission of an involuntary confession is subject to a harmless error analysis when the defendants guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt holding as a matter of law that the agency improperly applied a harmless error analysis to proceedings involving involuntary discharge from the military holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis