19 C.F.R. § 351.702

Applicability dates for countervailing duty regulations

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

(a) Notwithstanding § 351.701, the regulations in subpart E of this part apply to:

(1) All CVD investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed after December 28, 1998;

(2) All CVD administrative reviews initiated on the basis of requests filed on or after the first day of January 1999; and

(3) To all segments of CVD proceedings self-initiated by the Department after December 28, 1998.

(b) Segments of CVD proceedings to which subpart E of this part does not apply will continue to be guided by the Department's previous methodology (in particular, as described in the 1989 Proposed Regulations), except to the extent that the previous methodology was invalidated by the URAA, in which case the Secretary will treat subpart E of this part as a restatement of the Department's interpretation of the requirements of the Act as amended by the URAA.

[63 FR 65417, Nov. 25, 1998]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2001–2003 · leading case: ALZ N v. v. United States, 283 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
ALZ N v. v. United States, 283 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 3× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.702 (a)(1) (2002); Preamble, 63 Fed.”
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 2001 CIT 87 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). · cites it 2× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.702 (a)(1) (1999). Although the Plaintiffs concede this obvious limitation, they argue that the 1999 Regulations direct Commerce to apply its terms to a countervailing determination commenced prior to its effective date, when “the previous methodology was…”
ALZ N v. v. United States, 2003 CIT 81 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 2× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.702 (a)(1) (2002); Preamble, 63 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.