C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER II—UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER C—INVESTIGATIONS OF UNFAIR PRACTICES IN IMPORT TRADE › PART 210—ADJUDICATION AND ENFORCEMENT › Subpart D—Motions

19 C.F.R. § 210.20

Declassification of confidential information

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

(a) Any party may move to declassify documents (or portions thereof) that have been designated confidential by the submitter but that do not satisfy the confidentiality criteria set forth in § 201.6(a) of this chapter. All such motions, whether brought at any time during the investigation or after conclusion of the investigation shall be addressed to and ruled upon by the presiding administrative law judge, or if the investigation is not before a presiding administrative law judge, by the chief administrative law judge or such administrative law judge as the chief administrative law judge may designate.

(b) Following issuance of a public version of the initial determination on whether there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or an initial determination that would otherwise terminate the investigation (if adopted by the Commission), the granting of a motion, in whole or part, to declassify information designated confidential shall constitute an initial determination, except as to that information for which no submissions in opposition to declassification have been filed.

[59 FR 39039, Aug. 1, 1994, as amended at 90 FR 242, Jan. 3, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1981–1989 · leading case: Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 68 C.C.P.A. 141 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 68 C.C.P.A. 141 (C.C.P.A. 1981). · cites it 6× “1333 and 1335), it is clear that Syntex’s revised complaint must comply with 19 CFR 210.20, which sets forth the requirements for a section 337 complaint.”
A. Meyers & Sons Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Grp., 545 N.E.2d 1206 (NY 1989). “The complaint does not allege harm based upon use of the price list and it appears to have been submitted solely as evidence that Meyers was selling the infringing product, a necessary element of proof in a complaint filed with the ITC under the Tariff Act (see, 19 CFR 210.20…”
Schaper Mfg. Co. & A. Eddy Goldfarb D/B/A A. Eddy Goldfarb & Assocs. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, Soma Traders, Ltd., 717 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “See Certain Molded-In Sandwich Panel Inserts and Methods for Their Installation, USITC Publication 1246 (May 1982); Certain Headboxes and Papermaking Machine Forming Sections for the Continuous Production of Paper, and Components Thereof, 213 USPQ 291 (ITC 1981), relief modified…”
— 19 C.F.R. § 210.20(a) — 1 case
Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 68 C.C.P.A. 141 (C.C.P.A. 1981). “1333 and 1335), it is clear that Syntex’s revised complaint must comply with 19 CFR 210.20, which sets forth the requirements for a section 337 complaint.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 210.20(a)(2) — 1 case
Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 68 C.C.P.A. 141 (C.C.P.A. 1981). “1333 and 1335), it is clear that Syntex’s revised complaint must comply with 19 CFR 210.20, which sets forth the requirements for a section 337 complaint.”
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.