C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER II—UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER B—NONADJUDICATIVE INVESTIGATIONS › PART 207—INVESTIGATIONS OF WHETHER INJURY TO DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES RESULTS FROM IMPORTS SOLD AT LESS THAN FAIR VALUE OR FROM SUBSIDIZED EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES › Subpart C—Final Determinations, Short Life Cycle Products

19 C.F.R. § 207.23

Prehearing brief

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

Each party who is an interested party shall submit to the Commission, no later than five (5) business days prior to the date of the hearing specified in the notice of scheduling, a prehearing brief. Prehearing briefs shall be signed and shall include a table of contents. The prehearing brief should present a party's case concisely and shall, to the extent possible, refer to the record and include information and arguments which the party believes relevant to the subject matter of the Commission's determination under section 705(b) or section 735(b) of the Act. Any person not an interested party may submit a brief written statement of information pertinent to the investigation within the time specified and the same manner specified for filing of prehearing briefs.

[79 FR 35925, June 25, 2014, as amended at 90 FR 235, Jan. 3, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1993–2002 · leading case: Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). · cites it 2× “By doing so, the ITC informed interested parties that were entitled to rely on the provisions of subsection 207.”
Suramerica De Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United States, 818 F. Supp. 348 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). “See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum, in Opposition to the Motion for Rehearing at 10; 19 C.F.R. § 207.23 (b) (1988). 90 The only other “evidence” in the record was two sentences in the 211-page hearing transcript, also in apparent violation of the ITC regulations.”
Grupo Indus. Camesa v. United States, 85 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “Camesa argues that by virtue of 19 C.F.R. § 207.23 , which provides that “[t]he Commission shall hold a hearing .”
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.