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 I—Enforcement Procedures and Advisory Opinions

19 C.F.R. § 210.76

Modification or rescission of exclusion orders, cease and desist orders, consent orders, and seizure and forfeiture orders

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

(a) Petitions for modification or rescission of exclusion orders, cease and desist orders, consent orders, and seizure and forfeiture orders. (1) Whenever any person believes that changed conditions of fact or law, or the public interest, require that an exclusion order, cease and desist order, consent order, or seizure and forfeiture order be modified or rescinded, in whole or in part, such person may file a petition, pursuant to section 337(k)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, requesting that the Commission make a determination that the conditions which led to the issuance of an exclusion order, cease and desist order, consent order, or seizure and forfeiture order no longer exist. The Commission may also on its own initiative consider such action. The petition shall state the changes desired and the changed circumstances or public interest warranting such action, shall include materials and argument in support thereof, and shall be served on all parties to the investigation in which the exclusion order, cease and desist order, consent order, or seizure and forfeiture order was issued. Any person may file a response to the petition within ten (10) days of service of the petition. If the Commission makes such a determination, it shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

(2) If the petitioner previously has been found by the Commission to be in violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and if its petition requests a Commission determination that the petitioner is no longer in violation of that section or requests modification or rescission of an order issued pursuant to section 337 (d), (e), (f), (g), or (i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the burden of proof in any proceeding initiated in response to the petition pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall be on the petitioner. In accordance with section 337(k)(2) of the Tariff Act, relief may be granted by the Commission with respect to such petition on the basis of new evidence or evidence that could not have been presented at the prior proceeding or on grounds that would permit relief from a judgment or order under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(3) If the petition requests modification or rescission of an order issued pursuant to section 337(d), (e), (f), (g), or (i) of the Tariff Act of 1930 on the basis of a licensing or other settlement agreement, the petition shall contain copies of the licensing or other settlement agreements, any supplemental agreements, any documents referenced in the petition or attached agreements, and a statement that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation. If the licensing or other settlement agreement contains confidential business information within the meaning of § 201.6(a) of this chapter, a copy of the agreement with such information deleted shall accompany the petition. On motion for good cause shown, the administrative law judge or the Commission may limit the service of the agreements to the settling parties and the Commission investigative attorney.

(b) Commission action upon receipt of petition. The Commission may thereafter institute a proceeding to modify or rescind the exclusion order, cease and desist order, or consent order by issuing a notice. The Commission may hold a public hearing and afford interested persons the opportunity to appear and be heard. After consideration of the petition, any responses thereto, and any information placed on the record at a public hearing or otherwise, the Commission shall take such action as it deems appropriate. The Commission may delegate any hearing under this section to the chief administrative law judge for designation of a presiding administrative law judge, who shall certify a recommended determination to the Commission.

(1) The determination of whether to institute shall be made within 30 days after the petition is filed, unless—

(i) Exceptional circumstances preclude adherence to a 30-day deadline;

(ii) The petitioner requests that the Commission postpone the determination on whether to institute a modification or rescission proceeding; or

(iii) The petitioner withdraws the petition.

(2) If exceptional circumstances preclude Commission adherence to the 30-day deadline for determining whether to institute a modification or rescission proceeding on the basis of the petition, the determination will be made as soon after that deadline as possible.

(3) If the petitioner desires to have the Commission postpone making a determination on whether to institute a modification or rescission proceeding in response to the petition, the petitioner must file a written request with the Secretary. If the request is granted, the determination will be rescheduled for a date that is appropriate in light of the facts.

(4) The petitioner may withdraw the complaint as a matter of right at any time before the Commission votes on whether to institute a modification or rescission proceeding. To effect such withdrawal, the petitioner must file a written notice with the Commission.

(5) The Commission shall institute a modification or rescission proceeding by publication of a notice in the Federal Register. The notice will define the scope of the modification or rescission proceeding and may be amended by leave of the Commission.

(c) Comments. Parties may submit comments on the recommended determination within 10 days from the service of the recommended determination. Parties may submit responses thereto within 5 business days from service of any comments.

[59 FR 39039, Aug. 1, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 43433, Aug. 23, 1996; 78 FR 23486, Apr. 19, 2013; 83 FR 21163, May 8, 2018; 90 FR 247, Jan. 3, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2022 · leading case: SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “If in fact the servers are now located outside of the United States, appellants are not without a remedy as appellants may petition for a modification or a rescission of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order under 19 C.F.R. § 210.76 if appellants are "no longer in…”
Epistar Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Moreover, without this appeal, Epistar would be entitled to a modification of the LEO under 19 C.F.R. § 210.76 (a)(1). Therefore, this court decides this issue in the interests of judicial efficiency and economy and the prevention of any further delays in this case.”
Mayborn Grp., Ltd. v. Itc, 965 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “It further maintains that the Complainants’ threat to seek enforcement of the GEO at the Commission creates a harm that is both imminent and real.”
Mems Tech. Berhard v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 447 F. App'x 142 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “79 or a modification of the order under 19 C.F.R. § 210.76 . Oral arg. at 30:00-31:15, available at http://oralarguments.”
Dbn Holding, Inc. v. Itc (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 10× “The Commission pointed to 19 C.F.R. § 210.76 , which “has been used by the Commission to vacate civil penalties which have been assessed for violation of a consent order,” as the procedural mechanism for the further proceedings it argued were necessary.”
Dbn Holding, Inc. v. Itc (Fed. Cir. 2022). · cites it 7× “In a prior appeal, we instructed the International Trade Commission to assess on remand “whether to modify or rescind the civil penalty pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.76 based on the final judgment of invalid- ity” of the patent asserted in the underlying Section 337 1…”
Dbn Holding, Inc. v. Itc, 26 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2022). · cites it 7× “In a prior appeal, we instructed the International Trade Commission to assess on remand “whether to modify or rescind the civil penalty pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.76 based on the final judgment of invalid- ity” of the patent asserted in the underlying Section 337 1…”
Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2020). · cites it 4× “On January 16, 2020, the Commission, on its own initiative, see 19 C.F.R. § 210.76 (a)(1), instituted a modification proceeding to adjudicate Wirtgen’s claim that the LEO did not apply to the Redesigned 1810 Series machines, see Comm’n Notice, 85 Fed.”
In Re Koki Holdings Am. Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2020). “It cites three decisions of this court involving very different circumstances, none of which dealt with whether the Commission could institute modification proceedings at the behest of a patent owner to determine 1 The Commission’s order cited 19 C.F.R. § 210.76 (a) as its…”
— 19 C.F.R. § 210.76(a)(1) — 1 case
Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2020). “On January 16, 2020, the Commission, on its own initiative, see 19 C.F.R. § 210.76 (a)(1), instituted a modification proceeding to adjudicate Wirtgen’s claim that the LEO did not apply to the Redesigned 1810 Series machines, see Comm’n Notice, 85 Fed.”
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.