An examiner assigned to review an application to establish, reorganize or expand a zone shall conduct a review taking into account the factors enumerated in § 400.26 and other appropriate sections of this part, which shall include:
(a) Conducting or participating in hearings scheduled by the Executive Secretary;
(b) Reviewing case records, including public comments;
(c) Requesting information and evidence from parties of record;
(d) Developing information and evidence necessary for evaluation and analysis of the application in accordance with the criteria of the Act and this part; and
(e) Developing recommendations to the Board and submitting a report to the Executive Secretary, generally within 150 days of the close of the period for public comment (75 days for reorganizations under the ASF) (see § 400.32):
(1) If the recommendations are unfavorable to the applicant, they shall be considered preliminary and the applicant shall be notified in writing (via electronic means, where appropriate) of the preliminary recommendations and the factors considered in their development. The applicant shall be given 30 days from the date of notification, subject to extensions upon request by the applicant, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, in which to respond to the recommendations and submit additional evidence pertinent to the factors considered in the development of the preliminary recommendations. Public comment may be invited on preliminary recommendations when warranted.
(2) If the response contains new evidence on which there has been no opportunity for public comment, the Executive Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register after completion of the review of the response. The new material shall be made available for public inspection and the Federal Register notice shall invite further public comment for a period of not less than 30 days, with an additional 15-day period for rebuttal comments.
(3) If the factors considered for an examiner's recommendation(s) change as a result of new evidence, the applicable procedures of paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section shall be followed.
(4) When necessary, a request may be made to CBP to provide further comments, which shall be submitted within 45 days after the request.
[77 FR 12139, Feb. 28, 2012, as amended at 89 FR 8529, Feb. 8, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Torrington Co. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 199 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
· cites it 3× “; see 15 C.F.R. § 400.33 (b) (1992) (entered into force April 6, 1992).”
Timken Co. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 897 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
· cites it 3× “at 30-31; see 15 C.F.R. § 400.33 (b) (1992) (effective from April 6, 1992).”
Timken Co. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 486 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs Brief at 64-65, 69-72; see 15 C.F.R. § 400.33 (b) (1992) (effective from April 6,1992).”
Helmerich & Payne, Inc. v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 2d 304 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
“” 15 C.F.R. § 400.33 (b)(1). Accordingly, Commerce cannot make an exception for goods subject to an antidumping duty order once they have entered the customs territory of the United States, but is required to include the merchandise in an administrative review.”
Timken Co. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 942 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
“15 C.F.R. § 400.33 (b)(1) (1992) mandates that FTZs “shall not be used to circumvent antidumping and countervailing duty actions.”
Timken Co. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 619 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
“See 15 C.F.R. § 400.33 (b)(2) (1992). 1 The merchandise here involved, having been imported into the FTZs as “nonprivileged” merchandise, was transformed in the FTZs into articles not covered by the antidumping duty order on TRBs, and is not subject to the antidumping order.”
Timken Co. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 839 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
· cites it 3× “at 41-45, 48-49; see 15 C.F.R. § 400.33 (b) (1992) (effective from April 6,1992).”
Timken Co. v. United States, 862 F. Supp. 413 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
· cites it 3× “at 41^5, 48-49; see 15 C.F.R. § 400.33 (b) (1992) (effective from April 6, 1992).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.