19 C.F.R. § 351.309

Written argument

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

(a) Introduction. Written argument may be submitted during the course of an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding. This section sets forth the time limits for submission of case and rebuttal briefs and provides guidance on what should be contained in these documents.

(b) Written argument—(1) In general. In making the final determination in a countervailing duty investigation or antidumping investigation or the final results of an administrative review, new shipper review, expedited antidumping review, section 753 review, or section 762 review, the Secretary will consider written arguments in case or rebuttal briefs filed within the time limits in this section.

(2) Written argument on request. Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Secretary may request written argument on any issue from any person or U.S. Government agency at any time during a proceeding.

(i) For a final determination in a countervailing duty investigation or antidumping investigation, or for the final results of a full sunset review, 50 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination or results of review, as applicable, unless the Secretary alters the time limit;

(ii) For the final results of an administrative review, new shipper review, changed circumstances review, or section 762 review, 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of review, unless the Secretary alters the time limit; or

(iii) For the final results of an expedited sunset review, expedited antidumping review, Article 8 violation review, Article 4/Article 7 review, or section 753 review, a date specified by the Secretary.

(2) The case brief must present all arguments that continue in the submitter's view to be relevant to the Secretary's final determination or final results, including any arguments presented before the date of publication of the preliminary determination or preliminary results. As part of the case brief, parties are requested to provide the following:

(i) A table of contents listing each issue;

(ii) A table of authorities, including statutes, regulations, administrative cases, dispute panel decisions and court holdings cited; and

(iii) A public executive summary for each argument raised in the brief. Executive summaries should be no more than 450 words in length, not counting supporting citations.

(d) Rebuttal brief. (1) Any interested party or U.S. Government agency may submit a “rebuttal brief” within five days after the time limit for filing the case brief, unless the Secretary alters this time limit.

(2) The rebuttal brief may respond only to arguments raised in case briefs, should identify the arguments raised in case briefs, and should identify the arguments to which it is responding. As part of the rebuttal brief, parties are requested to provide the following:

(i) A table of contents listing each issue;

(ii) A table of authorities, including statutes, regulations, administrative cases, dispute panel decisions and court holdings cited; and

(iii) A public executive summary for each argument raised in the rebuttal brief. Executive summaries should be no more than 450 words in length, not counting supporting citations.

(e) Comments on adequacy of response and appropriateness of expedited sunset review—(i) In general. Where the Secretary determines that respondent interested parties provided inadequate response to a Notice of Initiation (see § 351.218(e)(1)(ii)) and has notified the International Trade Commission as such under § 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), interested parties (and industrial users and consumer organizations) that submitted a complete substantive response to the Notice of Initiation under § 351.218(d)(3) may file comments on whether an expedited sunset review under section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and § 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) or 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C) is appropriate based on the adequacy of responses to the notice of initiation. These comments may not include any new factual information or evidence (such as supplementation of a substantive response to the notice of initiation) and are limited to five pages.

(ii) Time limit for filing comments. Comments on adequacy of response and appropriateness of expedited sunset review must be filed not later than 70 days after the date publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation.

[62 FR 27379, May 19, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 13524, Mar. 20, 1998; 70 FR 62064, Oct. 28, 2005; 89 FR 101764, Dec. 16, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 153 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Itochu Bldg. Prods. v. United States, 733 F.3d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Itochu Bldg. Prods. v. United States, 733 F.3d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 7× “Commerce invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results within 14 days, though it did not cite 19 C.F.R. § 351.309 , the regulation that governs submission of written argument by interested parties.”

Jacobi Carbons AB & Jacobi Carbons, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 39 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). · cites it 4× “See 19 C.F.R.§ 351.309. 9 This requirement permits the agency to address the issue in the first instance, in its final results, prior to being considered by the courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has confirmed the reasonableness of this…”

Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “19 C.F.R § 351.309(c)(2). That requirement applies, the regulation states, even as to “any arguments presented before the date of publication of the preliminary determination or preliminary results.”

Qvd Food Co., Ltd. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “The agency also must give parties an opportunity to submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs addressing any information submitted, 19 C.F.R. § 351.309 , and it must hold a hearing when requested, 19 U.”

Tri Union Frozen Prods., Inc. v. United States, 163 F. Supp. 3d 1255 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). · cites it 3× “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.309 (c). Failure to do so is a procedural defect that in effect abandons the argument and precludes raising the issue before the court.”

Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 351.309 (c)(2) (“The case brief must present all arguments that continue in the submitter’s view to be relevant to the Secretary’s final determination.”

Nakornthai Strip Mill Pub. Co. v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). · cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 351.309 (c)(1). The brief “must present all arguments that continue in the submitter’s view to be relevant to the Secretary’s final determination or final results.”

Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 2013 CIT 115 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013). · cites it 6× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.309 (c)(2). However, although Mid Continent had previously voiced concerns about Commerce’s respondent selection process and although its positions on respondent selection had changed over time, Mid Continent’s administrative case brief was silent on the…”

Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 3× “Ziyang selectively cites the first sentence of 19 C.F.R. § 351.309 (a), stating that “[w]ritten argument may be submitted during the course of an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding.”

Pakfood Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). · cites it 2× “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.309 (e)(2)(emphasis added).”

Jtekt Corp. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 3× “Instead, NPB *1223 relies on 19 C.F.R. § 351.309 (c)(2), which requires a party to submit all of its arguments in its case brief, including arguments presented before the publication of the preliminary results.”

Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. United States, 636 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 6× “) Titan argues that under 19 C.F.R. § 351.309 (c)(2), Xugong was required to raise the issue so that Titan was afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Show all 153 citing cases →

— 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c) — 2 cases

Tri Union Frozen Prods., Inc. v. United States, 163 F. Supp. 3d 1255 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.309 (c). Failure to do so is a procedural defect that in effect abandons the argument and precludes raising the issue before the court.”

Nakornthai Strip Mill Pub. Co. v. United States, 558 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).

— 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2) — 7 cases

Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “19 C.F.R § 351.309(c)(2). That requirement applies, the regulation states, even as to “any arguments presented before the date of publication of the preliminary determination or preliminary results.”

Stupp Co. v. United States, 2023 CIT 23 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).

Husteel Co. v. United States, 2015 CIT 66 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. v. United States, 2019 CIT 122 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Catfish Farmers of Am. v. United States, 2025 CIT 152 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

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.