Notes of Decisions
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 14× “Notably, Commerce also uses responses to question I-3 to determine whether a petition seeking imposition of an antidumping duty is filed "on behalf of the industry"as is required by 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. For a petition to meet this requirement, "domestic producers or workers who…”
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 595 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
· cites it 18× “2, 1998) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1)). A petition is only filed on behalf of the industry, if— (i) the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the do- mestic like product, and (ii) the domestic…”
Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
· cites it 8× “As the court has already stated: Since Commerce is authorized to commence an antidumping duty investigation sua sponte whenever it determines that an investigation is warranted based upon available information, 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(a) (1982), it would be unreasonable to require…”
Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 538 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
· cites it 7× “The procedure governing the petition stage of an investigation is set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. The portions of that statute relevant to the instant action are set forth as follows: (b) Initiation by Petition (1) Petition requirements.”
Gilmore Steel Corp. v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 670 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
· cites it 8× “The crux of the parties’ dispute focuses on the phrase “on behalf of an industry” contained in section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b) (1982). Section 1673a provides in part: § 1673a.”
Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. The United States, 745 F.2d 632 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
· cites it 6× “§ 1673a(b) ] and ends upon the final disposition of the case, up to revocation of an antidumping duty order, if 'any, under section 732, 733, 734, 735, or 751 [19 U.S.C. §§ 1673a, 1673b, 1673c, 1673d, or 1675], as the case may be.”
Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
· cites it 3× “That is, while 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(4)(E) provides that any potential interested party may submit comments or information on the issue of industry support prior to the initiation of an investigation, it explicitly states “[a]fter [Commerce] makes a determination with respect to…”
The United States v. Roses Inc., 706 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
· cites it 4× “It filed its original petition with the Commerce Department on June 4,1981, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1) (Supp. V 1981). That Department gave the matter immediate attention, being aware that by 19 U.”
Torrington Co. v. United States, 745 F. Supp. 718 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).
· cites it 4× “Commerce’s Authority to Modify the Class or Kind of Merchandise as Described in the Petition Plaintiff’s first argument is that once a petition which satisfies the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b) is filed, ITA lacks the “authority to modify ‘class or kind’ descriptions…”
Usec Inc. v. United States, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
· cites it 4× “19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(l) provides that {a}n antidumping proceeding shall be initiated whenever an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of section 1677(9) of this title files a petition with the administering authority, on behalf of an industry,…”
PS Chez Sidney, LLC v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
· cites it 4× “§ 1671a(b)(1) and 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1) mandate that countervailing duty and antidumping proceedings be initiated whenever an interested party “files a petition with the administering authority, on behalf of an industry.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(4)(E) — 1 case
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(a) — 17 cases
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Notably, Commerce also uses responses to question I-3 to determine whether a petition seeking imposition of an antidumping duty is filed "on behalf of the industry"as is required by 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. For a petition to meet this requirement, "domestic producers or workers who…”
Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. The United States, 745 F.2d 632 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
“§ 1673a(b) ] and ends upon the final disposition of the case, up to revocation of an antidumping duty order, if 'any, under section 732, 733, 734, 735, or 751 [19 U.S.C. §§ 1673a, 1673b, 1673c, 1673d, or 1675], as the case may be.”
Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
“As the court has already stated: Since Commerce is authorized to commence an antidumping duty investigation sua sponte whenever it determines that an investigation is warranted based upon available information, 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(a) (1982), it would be unreasonable to require…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(a)(1) — 2 cases
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Notably, Commerce also uses responses to question I-3 to determine whether a petition seeking imposition of an antidumping duty is filed "on behalf of the industry"as is required by 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. For a petition to meet this requirement, "domestic producers or workers who…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(a)(1982) — 1 case
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(a)(l) — 6 cases
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Notably, Commerce also uses responses to question I-3 to determine whether a petition seeking imposition of an antidumping duty is filed "on behalf of the industry"as is required by 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. For a petition to meet this requirement, "domestic producers or workers who…”
Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
“As the court has already stated: Since Commerce is authorized to commence an antidumping duty investigation sua sponte whenever it determines that an investigation is warranted based upon available information, 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(a) (1982), it would be unreasonable to require…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b) — 36 cases
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Notably, Commerce also uses responses to question I-3 to determine whether a petition seeking imposition of an antidumping duty is filed "on behalf of the industry"as is required by 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. For a petition to meet this requirement, "domestic producers or workers who…”
Torrington Co. v. United States, 745 F. Supp. 718 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).
“Commerce’s Authority to Modify the Class or Kind of Merchandise as Described in the Petition Plaintiff’s first argument is that once a petition which satisfies the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b) is filed, ITA lacks the “authority to modify ‘class or kind’ descriptions…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1) — 19 cases
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Notably, Commerce also uses responses to question I-3 to determine whether a petition seeking imposition of an antidumping duty is filed "on behalf of the industry"as is required by 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. For a petition to meet this requirement, "domestic producers or workers who…”
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 595 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“2, 1998) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1)). A petition is only filed on behalf of the industry, if— (i) the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the do- mestic like product, and (ii) the domestic…”
The United States v. Roses Inc., 706 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
“It filed its original petition with the Commerce Department on June 4,1981, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1) (Supp. V 1981). That Department gave the matter immediate attention, being aware that by 19 U.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(2) — 2 cases
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(l) — 30 cases
Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
“As the court has already stated: Since Commerce is authorized to commence an antidumping duty investigation sua sponte whenever it determines that an investigation is warranted based upon available information, 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(a) (1982), it would be unreasonable to require…”
Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 538 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
“The procedure governing the petition stage of an investigation is set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. The portions of that statute relevant to the instant action are set forth as follows: (b) Initiation by Petition (1) Petition requirements.”
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Notably, Commerce also uses responses to question I-3 to determine whether a petition seeking imposition of an antidumping duty is filed "on behalf of the industry"as is required by 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. For a petition to meet this requirement, "domestic producers or workers who…”
Gilmore Steel Corp. v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 670 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
“The crux of the parties’ dispute focuses on the phrase “on behalf of an industry” contained in section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b) (1982). Section 1673a provides in part: § 1673a.”
Usec Inc. v. United States, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
“19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(l) provides that {a}n antidumping proceeding shall be initiated whenever an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of section 1677(9) of this title files a petition with the administering authority, on behalf of an industry,…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c) — 17 cases
Gilmore Steel Corp. v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 670 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
“The crux of the parties’ dispute focuses on the phrase “on behalf of an industry” contained in section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b) (1982). Section 1673a provides in part: § 1673a.”
The United States v. Roses Inc., 706 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
“It filed its original petition with the Commerce Department on June 4,1981, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1) (Supp. V 1981). That Department gave the matter immediate attention, being aware that by 19 U.”
PS Chez Sidney, LLC v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
“§ 1671a(b)(1) and 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1) mandate that countervailing duty and antidumping proceedings be initiated whenever an interested party “files a petition with the administering authority, on behalf of an industry.”
Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
“As the court has already stated: Since Commerce is authorized to commence an antidumping duty investigation sua sponte whenever it determines that an investigation is warranted based upon available information, 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(a) (1982), it would be unreasonable to require…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(1) — 2 cases
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(1)(A) — 3 cases
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Notably, Commerce also uses responses to question I-3 to determine whether a petition seeking imposition of an antidumping duty is filed "on behalf of the industry"as is required by 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. For a petition to meet this requirement, "domestic producers or workers who…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(1)(A)(i) — 4 cases
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(1)(A)(ii) — 3 cases
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(1)(B) — 1 case
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(2) — 12 cases
Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 538 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
“The procedure governing the petition stage of an investigation is set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. The portions of that statute relevant to the instant action are set forth as follows: (b) Initiation by Petition (1) Petition requirements.”
Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
“As the court has already stated: Since Commerce is authorized to commence an antidumping duty investigation sua sponte whenever it determines that an investigation is warranted based upon available information, 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(a) (1982), it would be unreasonable to require…”
Torrington Co. v. United States, 745 F. Supp. 718 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).
“Commerce’s Authority to Modify the Class or Kind of Merchandise as Described in the Petition Plaintiff’s first argument is that once a petition which satisfies the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b) is filed, ITA lacks the “authority to modify ‘class or kind’ descriptions…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(3) — 2 cases
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(4) — 8 cases
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 595 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“2, 1998) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1)). A petition is only filed on behalf of the industry, if— (i) the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the do- mestic like product, and (ii) the domestic…”
Usec Inc. v. United States, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
“19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(l) provides that {a}n antidumping proceeding shall be initiated whenever an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of section 1677(9) of this title files a petition with the administering authority, on behalf of an industry,…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(4)(A) — 11 cases
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Notably, Commerce also uses responses to question I-3 to determine whether a petition seeking imposition of an antidumping duty is filed "on behalf of the industry"as is required by 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. For a petition to meet this requirement, "domestic producers or workers who…”
Usec Inc. v. United States, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
“19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(l) provides that {a}n antidumping proceeding shall be initiated whenever an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of section 1677(9) of this title files a petition with the administering authority, on behalf of an industry,…”
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 595 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“2, 1998) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1)). A petition is only filed on behalf of the industry, if— (i) the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the do- mestic like product, and (ii) the domestic…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(4)(A)(i) — 4 cases
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 595 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“2, 1998) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1)). A petition is only filed on behalf of the industry, if— (i) the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the do- mestic like product, and (ii) the domestic…”
PS Chez Sidney, LLC v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
“§ 1671a(b)(1) and 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1) mandate that countervailing duty and antidumping proceedings be initiated whenever an interested party “files a petition with the administering authority, on behalf of an industry.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(4)(D) — 1 case
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 595 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“2, 1998) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1)). A petition is only filed on behalf of the industry, if— (i) the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the do- mestic like product, and (ii) the domestic…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(4)(E) — 6 cases
Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“That is, while 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(4)(E) provides that any potential interested party may submit comments or information on the issue of industry support prior to the initiation of an investigation, it explicitly states “[a]fter [Commerce] makes a determination with respect to…”
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 595 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“2, 1998) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1)). A petition is only filed on behalf of the industry, if— (i) the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the do- mestic like product, and (ii) the domestic…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(l) — 1 case
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(l)(A) — 5 cases
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Notably, Commerce also uses responses to question I-3 to determine whether a petition seeking imposition of an antidumping duty is filed "on behalf of the industry"as is required by 19 U.S.C. § 1673a. For a petition to meet this requirement, "domestic producers or workers who…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(l)(A)(i) — 1 case
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(l)(A)(ii) — 2 cases
Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“That is, while 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(4)(E) provides that any potential interested party may submit comments or information on the issue of industry support prior to the initiation of an investigation, it explicitly states “[a]fter [Commerce] makes a determination with respect to…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(l)(B) — 1 case
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(d) — 2 cases
Gilmore Steel Corp. v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 670 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
“The crux of the parties’ dispute focuses on the phrase “on behalf of an industry” contained in section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b) (1982). Section 1673a provides in part: § 1673a.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(d)(2) — 1 case
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(e) — 2 cases
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(e)(1)(A)(i) — 1 case
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(e)(1)(A)(ii) — 1 case
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(e)(4) — 1 case
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(e)(4)(A) — 1 case
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 595 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“2, 1998) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1)). A petition is only filed on behalf of the industry, if— (i) the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the do- mestic like product, and (ii) the domestic…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(e)(4)(E) — 1 case
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 595 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“2, 1998) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1)). A petition is only filed on behalf of the industry, if— (i) the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the do- mestic like product, and (ii) the domestic…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(l)(B) — 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.