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 A—General Provisions

19 C.F.R. § 207.8

Questionnaires to have the force of subpoenas; subpoena enforcement

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

Any questionnaire issued by the Commission in connection with any investigation under title VII of the Act may be issued as a subpoena and subscribed by a Commissioner, after which it shall have the force and effect of a subpoena authorized by the Commission. Whenever any party or any other person fails to respond adequately to such a subpoena or whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable to produce information requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation, the Commission may:

(a) Use the facts otherwise available in making its determination;

(b) Seek judicial enforcement of the subpoena pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1333;

(c) Make inferences adverse to such person's position, if such person is an interested party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information; and

(d) Take such other actions as necessary to obtain needed information.

[61 FR 37831, July 22, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 4× “refuses or is unable to produce information requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation, the Commission may use the best information otherwise available in making its determination; .”
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 595 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 19 C.F.R. § 207.8 . This provision further allows the ITC to—among other things—pursue judicial enforcement, if the ITC determines that a party has failed to “respond adequately.”
Hitachi Metals, Ltd. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “§ 1333 (a) (setting forth the Commission's subpoena power); 19 C.F.R. § 207.8 . Time constraints limit the Commission's practical ability to utilize its subpoena power in AD/CVD proceedings.”
United States Int'l Trade Comm'n v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 637 F. Supp. 1262 (D.D.C. 1985). · cites it 2× “See 19 C.F.R. § 207.8 (questionnaires as subpoenas).”
Companhia Brasileira Carburelo De Calcio v. Applied Indus. Materials Corp., 698 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2010). “ITC questionnaires have the force of a subpoena, see 19 C.F.R. § 207.8 , and thus by responding to a questionnaire a defendant cannot be said to have purposefully availed itself of the forum.”
Awp Indus., Inc. v. United States, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). “§ 1333 ; see also 19 C.F.R. § 207.8 (2010); 3) or draw adverse inferences against or otherwise penalize non-cooperative respondents.”
Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “2d at 1309 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 207.8 ). 7 . The ITC used an underselling analysis to support its adverse inference with respect to the Conspiracy Period.”
Linyi Chengen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2026). “See 19 C.F.R § 207.8. Commerce re- views the responses and, thereafter, issues a preliminary determination of an appropriate antidumping duty.”
Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 2004 CIT 49 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “2d at 1309 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 207.8 ). 7 The ITC used an underselling analysis to support its adverse inference with respect to the Conspiracy Period.”
Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio—CBCC v. Applied Indus. Materials Corp., 859 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012). “Thus, the Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Elkem or CC Metal solely based on their submission of allegedly fraudulent ITC questionnaires.”
Companhia Ferroligas v. Applied Indus Mater (D.D.C. 2010). “13 ITC questionnaires have the force of a subpoena, see 19 C.F.R. § 207.8 , and thus by responding to a questionnaire a defendant cannot be said to have purposefully availed itself of the forum.”
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 11 Ct. Int'l Trade 76 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987). “§ 1333 (1982); 19 C.F.R. § 207.8 (1986), it relies upon the cooperation of respondents to its queries for information in order to comply with the statutory deadlines for completion of its determinations.”
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.