19 C.F.R. § 351.216

Changed circumstances review under section 751(b) of the Act

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

(a) Introduction. Section 751(b) of the Act provides for what is known as a “changed circumstances” review. This section contains rules regarding requests for changed circumstances reviews and procedures for conducting such reviews.

(b) Requests for changed circumstances review. At any time, an interested party may request a changed circumstances review, under section 751(b) of the Act, of an order or a suspended investigation. Within 45 days after the date on which a request is filed, the Secretary will determine whether to initiate a changed circumstances review.

(c) Limitation on changed circumstances review. Unless the Secretary finds that good cause exists, the Secretary will not review a final determination in an investigation (see section 705(a) or section 735(a) of the Act) or a suspended investigation (see section 704 or section 734 of the Act) less than 24 months after the date of publication of notice of the final determination or the suspension of the investigation.

(d) Procedures. If the Secretary decides that changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review exist, the Secretary will conduct a changed circumstances review in accordance with § 351.221.

(e) Time limits. The Secretary will issue final results of review (see § 351.221(b)(5)) within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated, or within 45 days if all parties to the proceeding agree to the outcome of the review.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 2003–2019 · leading case: Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). · cites it 2× “Invoking 19 C.F.R. § 351.216 (b), 3 U.S. Steel requested that Commerce initiate a changed circumstances review to reinstate the order with regard to SSI’s exports of subject merchandise to the United States.”
Home Prods. Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 633 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “§ 1675 (b)(1); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.216 . In Tokyo Kikai, 529 F.”
Itochu Bldg. Prods. v. United States, 2012 CIT 122 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). · cites it 2× “The Department’s regulations, in 19 C.F.R. § 351.216 (e), provide for an expedited issuance of final results, ie.”
Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co. v. United States, 601 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.216 (b). 2 . Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 are to the relevant provision in Title 19 of the United States Code, 2000 edition.”
Inmax Sdn. Bhd. v. United States, 2017 CIT 158 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “There is also a "parroting regulation,” 19 C.F.R. § 351.216 (c), that "does little more than restate the terms of the statute itself,” Gonzales v.”
Ames True Temper v. United States, 2007 CIT 133 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 1675 (b) 4 and 19 C.F.R. § 351.216 . 5 See Pl.’s Mem. 19; Pl.”
Okaya (USA), Inc. v. United States, 2003 CIT 130 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 351.216 (b). See 19 U.S.C. § 1675 (d)(1).”
Venus Wire Indus. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 2019 CIT 170 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019). “§ 1675 (b)(1)(A); see also 19 C.F.R. 351.216 (2019). Court No. 18-00113 Page 5 purpose.”
Sahaviriya Steel Indus. Pub. Co. v. United States, 2009 CIT 15 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.216 (b). Court No. 08-00353 Page 6 Commerce conducted an analysis of the information it received from U.”
Itochu Bldg. Prods. v. United States, 2014 CIT 37 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). “§ 1675 (b); 19 C.F.R. §§ 351.216 , 351.221(c)(3).3 Mid Continent sought revocation of the Order as to these four types of nails on the ground that “the domestic industry no longer has an interest in maintaining the Order with respect these specific products.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.216(e) — 1 case
Itochu Bldg. Prods. v. United States, 2012 CIT 122 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). “The Department’s regulations, in 19 C.F.R. § 351.216 (e), provide for an expedited issuance of final results, ie.”
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.