(a) Introduction. The URAA provides for opportunity for comment by consumer organizations and industrial users on matters relevant to a particular determination of dumping, subsidization, or injury. This section indicates under what circumstances such persons may submit relevant information and argument.
(b) Opportunity to submit relevant information and argument. In an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding under title VII of the Act and this part, an industrial user of the subject merchandise or a representative consumer organization, as described in section 777(h) of the Act, may submit relevant factual information and written argument to the Department under paragraphs (d)(3)(ii), and (d)(3)(vi), and (d)(4) of § 351.218, paragraphs (b), (c)(1), and (c)(3) of § 351.301, and paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of § 351.309 concerning dumping or a countervailing subsidy. All such submissions must be filed in accordance with § 351.303.
(c) Business proprietary information. Persons described in paragraph (b) of this section may request business proprietary treatment of information under § 351.304, but will not be granted access under § 351.305 to business proprietary information submitted by other persons.
[62 FR 27379, May 19, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 13524, Mar. 20, 1998]
Notes of Decisions
Usec Inc. v. United States, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
· cites it 4× “21 AHUG participated in the administrative proceedings at issue here pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.312 , which permits “industrial users” of subject merchandise to submit “relevant factual information and written argument” to Commerce.”
Ad Hoc Utils. Grp. v. United States, 625 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).
· cites it 2× “9 Addressing the issue of AHUG’s standing to participate in the Second Sunset Review, Commerce treated AHUG as an “industrial user” of subject merchandise pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.312 , 10 and concluded that, in that administrative proceeding, AHUG did not have standing as an…”
Techsnabexport v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
“In the Review, Commerce treated AHUG as an "industrial user” of subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.312 , and did not recognize AHUG’s standing as an “interested *1365 party.”
USEC Inc. v. United States, 2003 CIT 34 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
· cites it 3× “02-00219, 221, 227, 229, and 233 AHUG participated in the administrative proceedings at issue here pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.312 , which permits “industrial users” of subject merchandise to submit “relevant factual information and written argument” to Commerce.”
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.