19 U.S.C. § 1671d

Final determinations

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

(a) Final determination by administering authority(1) In general

Within 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination under section 1671b(b) of this title, the administering authority shall make a final determination of whether or not a countervailable subsidy is being provided with respect to the subject merchandise; except that when an investigation under this part is initiated simultaneously with an investigation under part II of this subtitle, which involves imports of the same class or kind of merchandise from the same or other countries, the administering authority, if requested by the petitioner, shall extend the date of the final determination under this paragraph to the date of the final determination of the administering authority in such investigation initiated under part II of this subtitle.

(2) Critical circumstances determinationsIf the final determination of the administering authority is affirmative, then that determination, in any investigation in which the presence of critical circumstances has been alleged under section 1671b(e) of this title, shall also contain a finding as to whether—(A) the countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the Subsidies Agreement, and(B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.Such findings may be affirmative even though the preliminary determination under section 1671b(e)(1) of this title was negative.(3) De minimis countervailable subsidy

In making a determination under this subsection, the administering authority shall disregard any countervailable subsidy that is de minimis as defined in section 1671b(b)(4) of this title.

(b) Final determination by Commission(1) In generalThe Commission shall make a final determination of whether—(A) an industry in the United States—(i) is materially injured, or(ii) is threatened with material injury, or(B) the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded,by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise with respect to which the administering authority has made an affirmative determination under subsection (a). If the Commission determines that imports of the subject merchandise are negligible, the investigation shall be terminated.(2) Period for injury determination following affirmative preliminary determination by administering authorityIf the preliminary determination by the administering authority under section 1671b(b) of this title is affirmative, then the Commission shall make the determination required by paragraph (1) before the later of—(A) the 120th day after the day on which the administering authority makes its affirmative preliminary determination under section 1671b(b) of this title, or(B) the 45th day after the day on which the administering authority makes its affirmative final determination under subsection (a).(3) Period for injury determination following negative preliminary determination by administering authority

If the preliminary determination by the administering authority under section 1671b(b) of this title is negative, and its final determination under subsection (a) is affirmative, then the final determination by the Commission under this subsection shall be made within 75 days after the date of that affirmative final determination.

(4) Certain additional findings(A)Commission standard for retroactive application.—(i)In general.—If the finding of the administering authority under subsection (a)(2) is affirmative, then the final determination of the Commission shall include a finding as to whether the imports subject to the affirmative determination under subsection (a)(2) are likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the countervailing duty order to be issued under section 1671e of this title.(ii)Factors to consider.—In making the evaluation under clause (i), the Commission shall consider, among other factors it considers relevant—(I) the timing and the volume of the imports,(II) any rapid increase in inventories of the imports, and(III) any other circumstances indicating that the remedial effect of the countervailing duty order will be seriously undermined.(B) If the final determination of the Commission is that there is no material injury but that there is threat of material injury, then its determination shall also include a finding as to whether material injury by reason of imports of the merchandise with respect to which the administering authority has made an affirmative determination under subsection (a) would have been found but for any suspension of liquidation of entries of that merchandise.(c) Effect of final determinations(1) Effect of affirmative determination by the administering authorityIf the determination of the administering authority under subsection (a) is affirmative, then—(A) the administering authority shall make available to the Commission all information upon which such determination was based and which the Commission considers relevant to its determination, under such procedures as the administering authority and the Commission may establish to prevent disclosure, other than with the consent of the party providing it or under protective order, of any information to which confidential treatment has been given by the administering authority,(B)(i) the administering authority shall—(I) determine an estimated individual countervailable subsidy rate for each exporter and producer individually investigated, and, in accordance with paragraph (5), an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated and for new exporters and producers within the meaning of section 1675(a)(2)(B) of this title, or(II) if section 1677f–1(e)(2)(B) of this title applies, determine a single estimated country-wide subsidy rate, applicable to all exporters and producers,(ii) shall order the posting of a cash deposit, bond, or other security, as the administering authority deems appropriate, for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the estimated individual countervailable subsidy rate, the estimated all-others rate, or the estimated country-wide subsidy rate, whichever is applicable, and(C) in cases where the preliminary determination by the administering authority under section 1671b(b) of this title was negative, the administering authority shall order the suspension of liquidation under paragraph (2) of section 1671b(d) of this title.(2) Issuance of order; effect of negative determinationIf the determinations of the administering authority and the Commission under subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1) are affirmative, then the administering authority shall issue a countervailing duty order under section 1671e(a) of this title. If either of such determinations is negative, the investigation shall be terminated upon the publication of notice of that negative determination and the administering authority shall—(A) terminate the suspension of liquidation under section 1671b(d)(2) of this title, and(B) release any bond or other security and refund any cash deposit required under section 1671b(d)(1)(B) of this title.(3) Effect of negative determinations under subsections (a)(2) and (b)(4)(A)If the determination of the administering authority or the Commission under subsection (a)(2) and (b)(4)(A), respectively, is negative, then the administering authority shall—(A) terminate any retroactive suspension of liquidation required under paragraph (4) or section 1671b(e)(2) of this title, and(B) release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit required, under section 1671b(d)(1)(B) of this title with respect to entries of the merchandise the liquidation of which was suspended retroactively under section 1671b(e)(2) of this title.(4) Effect of affirmative determination under subsection (a)(2)If the determination of the administering authority under subsection (a)(2) is affirmative, then the administering authority shall—(A) in cases where the preliminary determinations by the administering authority under sections 1671b(b) and 1671b(e)(1) of this title were both affirmative, continue the retroactive suspension of liquidation and the posting of a cash deposit, bond, or other security previously ordered under section 1671b(e)(2) of this title;(B) in cases where the preliminary determination by the administering authority under section 1671b(b) of this title was affirmative, but the preliminary determination under section 1671b(e)(1) of this title was negative, shall modify any suspension of liquidation and security requirement previously ordered under section 1671b(d) of this title to apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the date on which suspension of liquidation was first ordered; or(C) in cases where the preliminary determination by the administering authority under section 1671b(b) of this title was negative, shall apply any suspension of liquidation and security requirement ordered under subsection (c)(1)(B) to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the date on which suspension of liquidation is first ordered.(5) Method for determining the all-others rate and the country-wide subsidy rate(A) All-others rate(i) General rule

For purposes of this subsection and section 1671b(d) of this title, the all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 1677e of this title.

(ii) Exception

If the countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis rates, or are determined entirely under section 1677e of this title, the administering authority may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.

(B) Country-wide subsidy rate

The administering authority may calculate a single country-wide subsidy rate, applicable to all exporters and producers, if the administering authority limits its examination pursuant to section 1677f–1(e)(2)(B) of this title. The estimated country-wide rate determined under section 1671b(d)(1)(A)(ii) of this title or paragraph (1)(B)(i)(II) of this subsection shall be based on industry-wide data regarding the use of subsidies determined to be countervailable.

(d) Publication of notice of determinations

Whenever the administering authority or the Commission makes a determination under this section, it shall notify the petitioner, other parties to the investigation, and the other agency of its determination and of the facts and conclusions of law upon which the determination is based, and it shall publish notice of its determination in the Federal Register.

(e) Correction of ministerial errors

The administering authority shall establish procedures for the correction of ministerial errors in final determinations within a reasonable time after the determinations are issued under this section. Such procedures shall ensure opportunity for interested parties to present their views regarding any such errors. As used in this subsection, the term “ministerial error” includes errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 705, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 159; amended Pub. L. 98–573, title VI, §§ 602(a)(2), 605(a), 606, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3024, 3028, 3029; Pub. L. 100–418, title I, §§ 1324(a)(3), 1333(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1200, 1209; Pub. L. 103–465, title II, §§ 212(b)(1)(B), 214(a)(2), 233(a)(5)(N), 263(b), 264(b), (c)(7), (8), 270(a)(1)(F), (G), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4848, 4850, 4899, 4912–4914, 4917; Pub. L. 104–295, § 20(b)(15), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3527.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1996—Subsec. (c)(1)(B)(i)(II). Pub. L. 104–295 inserted “section” after “if”.

1994—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, §§ 233(a)(5)(N), 270(a)(1)(F), substituted “countervailable subsidy” for “subsidy” and “the subject merchandise” for “the merchandise”.

Subsec. (a)(2)(A). Pub. L. 103–465, §§ 214(a)(2)(A)(i), 270(a)(1)(G), substituted “countervailable subsidy” for “subsidy” and “Subsidies Agreement” for “Agreement”.

Subsec. (a)(2)(B). Pub. L. 103–465, § 214(a)(2)(A)(ii), substituted “subject merchandise” for “class or kind of merchandise involved”.

Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 103–465, § 263(b), added par. (3).

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, § 212(b)(1)(B), inserted at end of concluding provisions “If the Commission determines that imports of the subject merchandise are negligible, the investigation shall be terminated.”

Subsec. (b)(4)(A). Pub. L. 103–465, § 214(a)(2)(B), amended subpar. (A) generally, substituting present provisions for provisions requiring, in the case of an affirmative critical circumstances determination, an additional finding as to whether retroactive imposition of a countervailing duty would be necessary to prevent recurrence of material injury caused by massive imports of subject merchandise over a relatively short period of time.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, § 264(b)(1), struck out “and” at end of subpar. (A), added subpar. (B), and redesignated former subpar. (B) as (C) and substituted “the suspension of liquidation under paragraph (2) of section 1671b(d) of this title” for “under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1671b(d) of this title the suspension of liquidation and the posting of a cash deposit, bond, or other security”.

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 103–465, § 264(c)(7), in subpar. (A), substituted “1671b(d)(2)” for “1671b(d)(1)” and in subpar. (B), substituted “1671b(d)(1)(B)” for “1671b(d)(2)”.

Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Pub. L. 103–465, § 264(c)(8), substituted “1671b(d)(1)(B)” for “1671b(d)(2)”.

Subsec. (c)(5). Pub. L. 103–465, § 264(b)(2), added par. (5).

1988—Subsec. (b)(4)(A). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1324(a)(3), amended subpar. (A) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (A) read as follows: “If the finding of the administering authority under subsection (a)(2) of this section is affirmative, then the final determination of the Commission shall include findings as to whether—

“(i) there is material injury which will be difficult to repair, and

“(ii) the material injury was by reason of such massive imports of the subsidized merchandise over a relatively short period.”

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1333(a), added subsec. (e).

1984—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 98–573, § 606, inserted provision that when an investigation under this part is initiated simultaneously with an investigation under part II of this subtitle, which involves imports of the same class or kind of merchandise from the same or other countries, the administering authority, if requested by the petitioner, shall extend the date of the final determination under this paragraph to the date of the final determination of the administering authority in such investigation initiated under part II of this subtitle.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 98–573, § 605(a)(1), inserted provision after subpar. (B) that such findings may be affirmative even though the preliminary determination under section 1671b(e)(1) of this title was negative.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 98–573, § 602(a)(2), inserted “, or sales (or the likelihood of sales for importation,” in provision after subpar. (B).

Subsec. (c)(3)(A). Pub. L. 98–573, § 605(a)(3), inserted reference to par. (4).

Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 98–573, § 605(a)(2), added par. (4).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–465 effective, except as otherwise provided, on the date on which the WTO Agreement enters into force with respect to the United States (Jan. 1, 1995), and applicable with respect to investigations, reviews, and inquiries initiated and petitions filed under specified provisions of this chapter after such date, see section 291 of Pub. L. 103–465, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by section 1333(a) of Pub. L. 100–418 effective Aug. 23, 1988, and amendment by section 1324(a)(3) of Pub. L. 100–418 applicable with respect to investigations initiated after Aug. 23, 1988, see section 1337(a), (c) of Pub. L. 100–418, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by section 602(a)(2) of Pub. L. 98–573 applicable with respect to investigations initiated by petition or by the administering authority under parts I and II of this subtitle, and to reviews begun under section 1675 of this title, on or after Oct. 30, 1984, and amendment by sections 605(a) and 606 of Pub. L. 98–573 effective Oct. 30, 1984, see section 626(a), (b)(1) of Pub. L. 98–573, as amended, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 143 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: MacLean-fogg Co. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

MacLean-fogg Co. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 13× “II The central question on appeal is whether 19 U.S.C. § 1671d is ambiguous on the issue of whether voluntary respondent rates are to be included in the calculation of the all-others rate under the general rule.”

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(1), 1673d(b)(1). Upon completion of its investigations, the Commission issued final determinations that the domestic steel industry was not materially injured by reason of the imports.”

Kyocera Solar, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 844 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d, 1673d. Section 1671d(b), which is mirrored by § 1673d(b), reads as follows: *1339 (b) Final determination by Commission (1) In general The Commission shall make a final determination of whether— (A) an industry in the United States— (i) is materially injured,…”

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3d 1276 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 13× “§ 1516a(a)(2) seeking review of a final determination of the Commission reached under 19 U.S.C. § 1671d, "[t]he court shall hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found .”

Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. United States, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 5× “(together, “Hynix”) challenge the final affirmative material injury determination made by the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b) with respect to dynamic random access memory semiconductors of one megabit or above (“DRAMS”),-…”

MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1349 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). · cites it 13× “As explained below, because Commerce’s decision to rely on simple averaging when calculating the “all-others” rate in this case was an unreasonable judgment in the application of 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(5)(A)(i), this determination is remanded for reconsideration.”

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 5× “at 2-3 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)).) However, U.S. Steel argues that by focusing on current imports, the ITC improperly added a limitation to the statute.”

Maclean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 47 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). · cites it 5× “19 U.S.C. § 1671d (c)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). 11 .”

Am. Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 590 F. Supp. 1273 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984). · cites it 2× “ions, the ITC is required to determine whether: (A) an industry in the United States— (i) is materially injured, or (ii) is threatened with material injury, or (B) the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of the…”

Sichuan Changhong Elec. Co. v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(2)(A), if Commerce’s final determination is negative, Commerce must terminate the suspension of liquidation required by § 167lb(d)(2).”

British Steel Corp. v. United States, 593 F. Supp. 405 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984). · cites it 3× “[Footnote omitted] The Commission must make an affirmative finding only when it finds both (1) present material injury (or threat to or retardation of the establishment of an industry) and (2) that the material injury is “by reason of” the subject imports.”

Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 673 F. Supp. 454 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 1671d, the ITC had 75 days after Commerce’s affirmative final determination to deter *461 mine whether or not the imports were materially injuring or threatening to materially injure a U.S. industry. On March 22, 1983, the ITC instituted a final countervailing duty…”

Show all 143 citing cases →

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(a) — 4 cases

SMA Surfaces, Inc. v. United States, 2023 CIT 04 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 853 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983).

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3d 1276 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “§ 1516a(a)(2) seeking review of a final determination of the Commission reached under 19 U.S.C. § 1671d, "[t]he court shall hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found .”

Downhole Pipe & Equip., LP v. United States, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(a)(1) — 3 cases

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 159 F. Supp. 2d 730 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

Tau-Ken Temir LLP v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2025).

Jindal Poly Films Ltd. of India v. United States, 2020 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(a)(2) — 3 cases

Canadian Meat Council v. United States, 680 F. Supp. 390 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).

MTD Prods. Inc. v. United States, 2023 CIT 34 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(a)(2)(B) — 2 cases

Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2010 CIT 30 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).

Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2003 CIT 151 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(a)(3) — 5 cases

AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).

PAO Severstal v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1411 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

ArcelorMittal USA LLC v. United States, 2017 CIT 49 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Arcelormittal U.S. LLC v. United States, 2018 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

PAO Severstal v. United States, 2017 CIT 50 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(a)(l) — 8 cases

United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 618 F. Supp. 496 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985).

Bingham & Taylor Div., Virginia Indus., Inc. v. The United States, 815 F.2d 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Dupont Teijin Films Usa, Lp v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 614 F. Supp. 1241 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985).

Gold East Paper (JIANGSU) Co. v. United States, 896 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b) — 38 cases

Kyocera Solar, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 844 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d, 1673d. Section 1671d(b), which is mirrored by § 1673d(b), reads as follows: *1339 (b) Final determination by Commission (1) In general The Commission shall make a final determination of whether— (A) an industry in the United States— (i) is materially injured,…”

Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. United States, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “(together, “Hynix”) challenge the final affirmative material injury determination made by the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b) with respect to dynamic random access memory semiconductors of one megabit or above (“DRAMS”),-…”

Negev Phosphates, Ltd. v. United States Dep't of Com., 699 F. Supp. 938 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).

Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

PS Chez Sidney, LLC v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(1) — 13 cases

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(1), 1673d(b)(1). Upon completion of its investigations, the Commission issued final determinations that the domestic steel industry was not materially injured by reason of the imports.”

PAO Severstal v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1411 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Angus Chem. Co. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1255 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(1)(B) — 1 case

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(4) — 1 case

Bingham & Taylor, Div., Virginia Indus., Inc. v. United States, 627 F. Supp. 793 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(4)(A)(ii) — 2 cases

MTD Prods. Inc. v. United States, 2023 CIT 34 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(4)(B) — 1 case

Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 2013 CIT 44 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(l) — 23 cases

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “at 2-3 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)).) However, U.S. Steel argues that by focusing on current imports, the ITC improperly added a limitation to the statute.”

Am. Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 590 F. Supp. 1273 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984). “ions, the ITC is required to determine whether: (A) an industry in the United States— (i) is materially injured, or (ii) is threatened with material injury, or (B) the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of the…”

R-M Indus., Inc. v. United States, 848 F. Supp. 204 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(l)(A) — 1 case

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c) — 3 cases

Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States, 59 F.4th 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

Shree Rama Enter. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1165 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).

United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 566 F. Supp. 1529 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(1)(B) — 1 case

MacLean-fogg Co. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “II The central question on appeal is whether 19 U.S.C. § 1671d is ambiguous on the issue of whether voluntary respondent rates are to be included in the calculation of the all-others rate under the general rule.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(1)(B)(i) — 6 cases

Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd. v. United States, 2020 CIT 115 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 74 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

Comm. Overseeing Action for Lumber Int'l Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, 2019 CIT 96 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(1)(B)(ii) — 1 case

Capella Sales & Servs. Ltd. v. United States, 2016 CIT 86 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(2) — 4 cases

Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. v. United States, 2015 CIT 109 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

Lone Star Steel Co. v. United States, 649 F. Supp. 75 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).

T.B. Wood's Inc. v. United States, 2018 CIT 164 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(2)(A) — 1 case

Sichuan Changhong Elec. Co. v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(2)(A), if Commerce’s final determination is negative, Commerce must terminate the suspension of liquidation required by § 167lb(d)(2).”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(2)(B) — 4 cases

Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Prods. Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 73 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).

PAO Severstal v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1411 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

ArcelorMittal USA LLC v. United States, 2017 CIT 49 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

PAO Severstal v. United States, 2017 CIT 50 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(5) — 4 cases

Gov't of Quebec v. United States, 105 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024).

Rimco Inc. v. United States, 98 F.4th 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2024).

Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1469 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

Gov't of Quebec v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2024).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(5)(A) — 2 cases

Maclean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 47 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). “19 U.S.C. § 1671d (c)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). 11 .”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(5)(A)(i) — 7 cases

MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1349 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). “As explained below, because Commerce’s decision to rely on simple averaging when calculating the “all-others” rate in this case was an unreasonable judgment in the application of 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(5)(A)(i), this determination is remanded for reconsideration.”

Maclean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 47 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). “19 U.S.C. § 1671d (c)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). 11 .”

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 286 F. Supp. 3d 1364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(5)(A)(ii) — 2 cases

Maclean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 47 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). “19 U.S.C. § 1671d (c)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). 11 .”

Snap-on, Inc. v. United States, 2013 CIT 150 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(5)(B) — 1 case

Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1469 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(l) — 1 case

Shree Rama Enter. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1165 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(l)(B) — 3 cases

Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 181 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

Maclean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 81 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(l)(B)(i) — 4 cases

UCF Am. Inc. v. United States, 919 F. Supp. 435 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 146 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c)(l)(B)(ii) — 4 cases

Capella Sales & Servs. Ltd. v. United States, 2016 CIT 72 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

Shree Rama Enter. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1165 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).

Shandong Huarong Gen. Grp. Corp. v. United States, 122 F. Supp. 2d 143 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

Shandong Huarong Gen. Grp. Corp. v. United States, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(d) — 6 cases

British Steel Corp. v. United States, 593 F. Supp. 405 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984). “[Footnote omitted] The Commission must make an affirmative finding only when it finds both (1) present material injury (or threat to or retardation of the establishment of an industry) and (2) that the material injury is “by reason of” the subject imports.”

PPG Indus., Inc. v. United States, 708 F. Supp. 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).

Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 977 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 590 F. Supp. 1237 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).

ArcelorMittal USA LLC v. United States, 2017 CIT 49 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(d)(l)(B)(i) — 1 case

Coalition for the Pres. of Am. Brake Drum & Rotor Aftermarket Mfrs. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 229 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(e) — 4 cases

Geneva Steel v. United States, 914 F. Supp. 563 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

Borlem S.A.—Empreedimentos Industriais v. United States, 913 F.2d 933 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP v. United States, 2004 CIT 70 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(e)(1)(B)(ii) — 1 case

GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 2015 CIT 46 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(e)(5)(A)(i) — 1 case

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(e)(l)(B)(i) — 1 case

UCF Am. Inc. v. United States, 919 F. Supp. 435 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(f) — 1 case

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.