19 C.F.R. § 159.62

Notice of distribution

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Publication of notice. At least 90 days before the end of a fiscal year, Customs will publish in the Federal Register a notice of intention to distribute assessed duties received as the continued dumping and subsidy offset for that fiscal year. The notice will include the list of domestic producers, based upon the list supplied by the USITC (see § 159.61(b)(1)), that would be potentially eligible to receive the distribution.

(b) Content of notice. The notice of intention to distribute the offset will also contain the following:

(1) The case name and number of the particular order or finding concerned, together with the dollar amount contained in the special account for that order or finding as of June 1 of the subject fiscal year (see § 159.64(a)(1)); and

(2) The instructions for filing the certification under § 159.63 in order to claim a distribution.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 2005–2010 · leading case: Dixon Ticonderoga Co. v. United States, & Musgrave Pencil Co., Rosemoon Pencil Co. & Gen. Pencil Co., 468 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dixon Ticonderoga Co. v. United States, & Musgrave Pencil Co., Rosemoon Pencil Co. & Gen. Pencil Co., 468 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 8× “Because the record contains no evidence that Dixon was substantially prejudiced by the United States Customs and Border Protection’s (“Customs”) failure to timely publish a notice of intention to distribute assessed duties as required by 19 C.F.R. § 159.62 (a), we reverse. I The…”

SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “" 19 C.F.R. § 159.62 (a). That notice contains instructions for filing a certification to claim a distribution.”

Dixon Ticonderoga Co. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 366 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). · cites it 4× “Although the court finds that the regulatory deadline set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 159.62 (a) constitutes a mere procedural guideline, Dixon’s motion is granted because the court finds that Customs’ failure to abide by its own notice regulations was substantially prejudicial to…”

Guangdong Chemicals Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “§ 1675c (2000), despite finding that the regulation in question was "merely [a] procedural aid[],” because plaintiffs failed to show substantial prejudice).”

Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Ins., 700 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “§ 1675c(d)(l),(2) (2000); 19 C.F.R. § 159.62 (a) (2009). Customs requests certifications of eligibility from ADPs, which are subject to specific requirements, and then reviews and verifies the ADP certifications.”

S. Shrimp All. v. United States, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “§ 1675c(d)(2); 19 C.F.R. § 159.62 (a). Customs’ notice invites potentially eligible ADPs to submit certifications that the ADPs are eligible for a distribution.”

Dixon Ticonderoga Co. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 8× “Because the record contains no evidence that Dixon was substantially prejudiced by the United States Customs and Border Protection’s (“Customs”) failure to timely publish a notice of intention to distribute assessed duties as required by 19 C.F.R. § 159.62 (a), we reverse. I The…”

Dixon Ticonderoga Co. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 2005 CIT 98 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). · cites it 3× “Both the CDSOA and the Customs regulation at issue, 19 C.F.R. § 159.62 (a), were designed to protect this interest.”

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.