U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— TARIFF ACT OF 1930 › Subtitle SUBTITLE II— SPECIAL PROVISIONS › Part Part I— Miscellaneous

19 U.S.C. § 1303

Repealed. Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 261(a), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4908

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 108 cases, 1934–2013 · leading case: ASG Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467 F. Supp. 1200 (Cust. Ct. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
ASG Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467 F. Supp. 1200 (Cust. Ct. 1979). · cites it 19× “In 1974 they filed with the Commissioner of Customs a petition under 19 U.S.C. § 1303 , alleging that bounties or grants were being paid or bestowed, directly or indirectly, upon the manufacture or production of float glass in Italy or upon the exportation of float glass from…”
Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 431 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). · cites it 23× “The countervailing duty order was issued under the authority of 19 U.S.C. § 1303 (a)(1), absent a material injury determination by Commerce, as Mexico was not at that time a “country under the Agreement” within the meaning of 19 U.”
Cementos Guadalajara, S.A. v. United States, 686 F. Supp. 335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). · cites it 14× “The petition alleged manufacturers, producers, or exporters of PHC in Mexico received, directly or indirectly, bounties or grants within the meaning of section 303 of the Act, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1303 . On the basis of the petition, the ITA initiated a countervailing duty…”
Cementos Anahuac Del Golfo, S.A. v. United States, 689 F. Supp. 1191 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). · cites it 12× “The petition alleged manufacturers, producers, or exporters of PHC in Mexico received, directly or indirectly, bounties or grants within the meaning of section 303 of the Act, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1303 . On the basis of the petition, the ITA initiated a countervailing duty…”
Canadian Fur Trappers Corp. v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). · cites it 6× “Prior to 1979, the statute governing the imposition of countervailing duties was 19 U.S.C. § 1303 . Plaintiffs’ merchandise entered subject to a 1974 countervailing duty order issued under § 1303.”
Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 437 U.S. 443 (1978). · cites it 2× “687 , as amended, 19 U. S. C. § 1303 (a) (1976 ed.), whenever a foreign country pays a “bounty or grant” upon the exportation of a product from that country, the Secretary of the Treasury is required to levy a countervailing duty, “equal to the net amount of such bounty or…”
Cabot Corp. v. United States, 620 F. Supp. 722 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985). · cites it 5× “Preferential Prices on Carbon Black Feedstock and Natural Gas Plaintiff first challenges the ITA final determination that Mexico did not confer a countervailable bounty or grant, within the meaning of section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1303 (1982), by providing…”
Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A., & Ceramicas Y Pisos Industriales De Culiacan, S.A. De C v. & Industrias Intercontinental, S.A. v. United States, 64 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). · cites it 7× “1978 , 2049 (1975) (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1303 (a)(1) (1976)). An early version of the countervailing duty law provided: Whenever any country .”
Ppg Indus., Inc. v. The United States, & Vitro Flotado, S.A. & Vidrio Plano De Mexico, S.A., 978 F.2d 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “9 Because 19 U.S.C. § 1303 (a)(1) requires, countervailing duties to be imposed if a product is subsidized, PPG argues that the ITA should have investigated whether the product was subsidized through other members of the Vitro group or FCE, i.”
Canadian Fur Trappers Corp., & Meldisco, a Div. of Melville Corp. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant, 884 F.2d 563 (Fed. Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “19 U.S.C. § 1303 (1982). Although 19 U.S.”
PPG Indus., Inc. v. United States, 662 F. Supp. 258 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987). · cites it 4× “PPG alleged that certain benefits constituting bounties or grants within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1930 (Tariff Act) § 303, 19 U.S.C. § 1303 were being provided directly or indirectly to Mexican manufacturers, producers, or exporters of float glass exported to the United…”
Barr v. United States, 324 U.S. 83 (1945). · cites it 2× “590 , 687, 19 U.S.C. § 1303 . Such bounties may readily take the form of favorable exchange rates.”
Show all 108 citing cases →
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.