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 D—Terminated, Suspended, and Continued Investigations, Investigations to Review Negotiated Agreements, and Investigation…

19 C.F.R. § 207.45

Investigation to review outstanding determination

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

(a) Request for review. Any person may file with the Commission a request for the institution of a review investigation under section 751(b) of the Act. The person making the request shall also promptly serve copies of the request on the parties to the original investigation upon which the review is to be based. All requests shall set forth a description of changed circumstances sufficient to warrant the institution of a review investigation by the Commission.

(b) Notice of receipt of a request. Upon the receipt of a properly filed and sufficient request for a review investigation, the Secretary shall publish a notice of having received such a request in the Federal Register inviting public comment on the question of whether the Commission should institute a review investigation. Persons shall have at least thirty (30) days from the date of publication in the Federal Register within which to submit comments to the Commission.

(c) Institution of an investigation. Within forty-five (45) days after the close of the period for public comments following publication of the receipt of a request, the Commission shall determine whether the request shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review and, if so, shall institute a review investigation. The Commission may also institute a review investigation on its own initiative. The review investigation shall be instituted by notice published in the Federal Register and shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date of such publication. If the Commission determines that a request does not show changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review, the request shall be dismissed and a notice of the dismissal published in the Federal Register stating the reasons therefor.

(d) Conduct of review investigation. The procedures set forth in subpart C of part 207 shall apply to all investigations instituted under this section.

[56 FR 11929, Mar. 21, 1991, as amended at 63 FR 30607, June 5, 1998; 79 FR 35925, June 25, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. The United States & Zenith Radio Corp., 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. The United States & Zenith Radio Corp., 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984). · cites it 4× “Nevertheless, an investigative review was undertaken pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.45 (1981) (implementing 19 U.”
Avesta AB v. United States, 689 F. Supp. 1173 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). · cites it 5× “§ 1675 (b) (1982) and 19 C.F.R. § 207.45 (b)(2) (1985) of the ITC’s regulations.”
Alberta Gas Chemicals, Ltd. v. Celanese Corp. & Celanese Chem. Co., Inc., 650 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1981). “Appellant claims that the Commission regulations that deal with altering or amending a prior determination apply only when circumstances have changed since the initial decision, or to correct technical errors.”
Eveready Battery Co., Inc. v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). · cites it 3× “See 19 C.F.R. § 207.45 (c) (1999). 7 The Commission has previously exercised its authority to self-initiate a review of multiple countries where a request for review was received for only one country.”
Am. Permac, Inc. & Boewe Maschinenfabrik, Gmbh, Boewe Sys. & Mach. Inc. v. The United States, 831 F.2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “the anti-dumping order if the order were to be modified or revoked____ 19 C.F.R. § 207.45 (1984). In performing this duty, it may be said that the ITC conducts an inquiry that has two phases.”
A. Hirsh, Inc. v. United States, 729 F. Supp. 1360 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990). · cites it 2× “1675(b) [and] the rule [of] 19 CFR 207.45, that the request does not show changed circumstances sufficient to warrant institution of a review investigation, regarding natural bristle paint brushes from the People’s Republic of China.”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 853 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). “19 CFR § 207.45 . § 207.45 Investigation to review outstanding determination.”
Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. v. United States, 733 F. Supp. 383 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990). · cites it 4× “” 19 USC § 1675 (b)(1); 19 CFR § 207.45 (a); and a second phase in which the Commission is charged with determining the impact on a U.”
Am. Permac, Inc. v. United States, 656 F. Supp. 1228 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “See 19 C.F.R. § 207.45 (2)-(3) (1984) (timetable for section 751(b) reviews by ITC).”
Avesta AB v. United States, 724 F. Supp. 974 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989). “§ 1675 (b) and 19 C.F.R. § 207.45 (1987) that the petition did not show changed circumstances sufficient to warrant institution of a review investigation.”
Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari T.A.Ş. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 2024 CIT 82 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024). · cites it 7× “§ 1675 (b)(1); 19 C.F.R. § 207.45 (a) (“All requests shall set forth a description of changed circumstances sufficient to warrant the institution of a review .”
A. Hirsh, Inc. v. United States, 737 F. Supp. 1186 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990). “at 1363 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 207.45 (3) (1989); Avesta AB v.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.