19 U.S.C. § 1673b

Preliminary determinations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Determination by Commission of reasonable indication of injury(1) General ruleExcept in the case of a petition dismissed by the administering authority under section 1673a(c)(3) of this title, the Commission, within the time specified in paragraph (2), shall determine, based on the information available to it at the time of the determination, whether there is a reasonable indication that—(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 subject merchandise and that imports of the subject merchandise are not negligible. If the Commission finds that imports of the subject merchandise are negligible or otherwise makes a negative determination under this paragraph, the investigation shall be terminated.(2) Time for Commission determinationThe Commission shall make the determination described in paragraph (1)—(A) in the case of a petition filed under section 1673a(b) of this title(i) within 45 days after the date on which the petition is filed, or(ii) if the time has been extended pursuant to section 1673a(c)(1)(B) of this title, within 25 days after the date on which the Commission receives notice from the administering authority of initiation of the investigation, and(B) in the case of an investigation initiated under section 1673a(a) of this title, within 45 days after the date on which the Commission receives notice from the administering authority that an investigation has been initiated under such section.(b) Preliminary determination by administering authority(1) Period of antidumping duty investigation(A) In general

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), within 140 days after the date on which the administering authority initiates an investigation under section 1673a(c) of this title, or an investigation is initiated under section 1673a(a) of this title, but not before an affirmative determination by the Commission under subsection (a) of this section, the administering authority shall make a determination, based upon the information available to it at the time of the determination, of whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the merchandise is being sold, or is likely to be sold, at less than fair value.

(B) If certain short life cycle merchandise involvedIf a petition filed under section 1673a(b) of this title, or an investigation initiated under section 1673a(a) of this title, concerns short life cycle merchandise that is included in a product category established under section 1673h(a) of this title, subparagraph (A) shall be applied—(i) by substituting “100 days” for “140 days” if manufacturers that are second offenders account for a significant proportion of the merchandise under investigation, and(ii) by substituting “80 days” for “140 days” if manufacturers that are multiple offenders account for a significant proportion of the merchandise under investigation.(C) Definitions of offendersFor purposes of subparagraph (B)—(i) The term “second offender” means a manufacturer that is specified in 2 affirmative dumping determinations (within the meaning of section 1673h of this title) as the manufacturer of short life cycle merchandise that is—(I) specified in both such determinations, and(II) within the scope of the product category referred to in subparagraph (B).(ii) The term “multiple offender” means a manufacturer that is specified in 3 or more affirmative dumping determinations (within the meaning of section 1673h of this title) as the manufacturer of short life cycle merchandise that is—(I) specified in each of such determinations, and(II) within the scope of the product category referred to in subparagraph (B).
(2) Preliminary determination under waiver of verification

Within 75 days after the initiation of an investigation, the administering authority shall cause an official designated for such purpose to review the information concerning the case received during the first 60 days of the investigation, and, if there appears to be sufficient information available upon which the preliminary determination can reasonably be based, to disclose to the petitioner and any interested party, then a party to the proceedings that requests such disclosure, all available nonconfidential information and all other information which is disclosed pursuant to section 1677f of this title. Within 3 days (not counting Saturdays, Sundays, or legal public holidays) after such disclosure, the petitioner and each party which is an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of section 1677(9) of this title to whom such disclosure was made may furnish to the administering authority an irrevocable written waiver of verification of the information received by the authority, and an agreement that it is willing to have a preliminary determination made on the basis of the record then available to the authority. If a timely waiver and agreement have been received from the petitioner and each party which is an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of section 1677(9) of this title to whom the disclosure was made, and the authority finds that sufficient information is then available upon which the preliminary determination can reasonably be based, a preliminary determination shall be made within 90 days after the initiation of the investigation on the basis of the record established during the first 60 days after the investigation was initiated.

(3) De minimis dumping margin

In making a determination under this subsection, the administering authority shall disregard any weighted average dumping margin that is de minimis. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a weighted average dumping margin is de minimis if the administering authority determines that it is less than 2 percent ad valorem or the equivalent specific rate for the subject merchandise.

(c) Extension of period in extraordinarily complicated cases(1) In generalIf—(A) the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within which the determination must be made under subsection (b)(1), or(B) the administering authority concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating and determines that—(i) the case is extraordinarily complicated by reason of—(I) the number and complexity of the transactions to be investigated or adjustments to be considered,(II) the novelty of the issues presented, or(III) the number of firms whose activities must be investigated, and(ii) additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determination,then the administering authority may postpone making the preliminary determination under subsection (b)(1) until not later than the 190th day after the date on which the administering authority initiates an investigation under section 1673a(c) of this title, or an investigation is initiated under section 1673a(a) of this title. No extension of a determination date may be made under this paragraph for any investigation in which a determination date provided for in subsection (b)(1)(B) applies unless the petitioner submits written notice to the administering authority of its consent to the extension.(2) Notice of postponement

The administering authority shall notify the parties to the investigation, not later than 20 days before the date on which the preliminary determination would otherwise be required under subsection (b)(1), if it intends to postpone making the preliminary determination under paragraph (1). The notification shall include an explanation of the reasons for the postponement, and notice of the postponement shall be published in the Federal Register.

(d) Effect of determination by the administering authorityIf the preliminary determination of the administering authority under subsection (b) of this section is affirmative, the administering authority—(1)(A) shall—(i) determine an estimated weighted average dumping margin for each exporter and producer individually investigated, and(ii) determine, in accordance with section 1673d(c)(5) of this title, an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, and(B) 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 weighted average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, whichever is applicable,(2) shall order the suspension of liquidation of all entries of merchandise subject to the determination which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of—(A) the date on which notice of the determination is published in the Federal Register, or(B) the date that is 60 days after the date on which notice of the determination to initiate the investigation is published in the Federal Register, and(3) shall make available to the Commission all information upon which such determination was based and which the Commission considers relevant to its injury 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.The instructions of the administering authority under paragraphs (1) and (2) may not remain in effect for more than 4 months, except that the administering authority may, at the request of exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, extend that 4-month period to not more than 6 months.(e) Critical circumstances determinations(1) In generalIf a petitioner alleges critical circumstances in its original petition, or by amendment at any time more than 20 days before the date of a final determination by the administering authority, then the administering authority shall promptly (at any time after the initiation of the investigation under this part) determine, on the basis of the information available to it at that time, whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that—(A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or(ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and(B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.The administering authority shall be treated as having made an affirmative determination under subparagraph (A) in any investigation to which subsection (b)(1)(B) is applied.(2) Suspension of liquidationIf the determination of the administering authority under paragraph (1) is affirmative, then any suspension of liquidation ordered under subsection (d)(2) shall apply, or, if notice of such suspension of liquidation is already published, be amended to apply, to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of—(A) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or(B) the date on which notice of the determination to initiate the investigation is published in the Federal Register.(f) Notice of determination

Whenever the Commission or the administering authority makes a determination under this section, the Commission or the administering authority, as the case may be, shall notify the petitioner, and other parties to the investigation, and the Commission or the administering authority (whichever is appropriate) of its determination. The administering authority shall include with such notification the facts and conclusions on which its determination is based. Not later than 5 days after the date on which the determination is required to be made under subsection (a)(2), the Commission shall transmit to the administering authority the facts and conclusions on which its determination is based.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 733, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 163; amended Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, § 1886(a)(2), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2921; Pub. L. 100–418, title I, §§ 1323(b), 1324(b)(2), 1326(d)(1), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1198, 1201, 1204; Pub. L. 103–465, title II, §§ 212(b)(2)(A), (C)–(E), 213(a), 214(b)(1), 215(b), 219(a), (c)(1), 233(a)(6)(A)(viii)–(x), (B), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4848–4852, 4855, 4857, 4901.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–465, § 212(b)(2)(A), amended heading and text of subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Except in the case of a petition dismissed by the administering authority under section 1673a(c)(3) of this title, the Commission, within 45 days after the date on which a petition is filed under section 1673a(b) of this title or on which it receives notice from the administering authority of an investigation commenced under section 1673a(a) of this title, shall make a determination, based upon the best information available to it at the time of the determination, of whether there is a reasonable indication that—

“(1) an industry in the United States—

“(A) is materially injured, or

“(B) is threatened with material injury, or

“(2) the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded,

by reason of imports of the merchandise which is the subject of the investigation by the administering authority. If that determination is negative, the investigation shall be terminated.”

Subsec. (b)(1)(A). Pub. L. 103–465, § 219(a)(2), struck out at end “If the determination of the administering authority under this subsection is affirmative, the determination shall include the estimated average amount by which the foreign market value exceeds the United States price.”

Pub. L. 103–465, §§ 212(b)(2)(C)(i), 233(a)(6)(A)(viii), substituted “140 days after the date on which the administering authority initiates an investigation under section 1673a(c) of this title” for “160 days after the date on which a petition is filed under section 1673a(b) of this title”, “initiated” for “commenced”, and “information” for “best information”.

Subsec. (b)(1)(B). Pub. L. 103–465, §§ 212(b)(2)(C)(ii), 233(a)(6)(A)(viii), in introductory provisions, substituted “initiated” for “commenced”, in cl. (i), substituted “100” for “120” and “140” for “160”, and in cl. (ii), substituted “80” for “100” and “140” for “160”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103–465, § 233(a)(6)(A)(ix), (B), substituted “initiation” for “commencement” after “90 days after the” and “initiated” for “commenced”.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 103–465, § 213(a), added par. (3).

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, §§ 212(b)(2)(D), 233(a)(6)(A)(x), in concluding provisions, substituted “190th day after the date on which the administering authority initiates an investigation under section 1673a(c) of this title” for “210th day after the date on which a petition is filed under section 1673a(b) of this title” and “initiated” for “commenced”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103–465, § 215(b)(1)(B), inserted concluding provisions.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, § 219(a)(1)(D), added par. (1). Former par. (1) redesignated (2).

Pub. L. 103–465, § 215(b)(1)(A), substituted “warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of—” and subpars. (A) and (B) for “warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the notice of the determination in the Federal Register,”.

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 103–465, § 219(a)(1)(A)–(C), redesignated par. (1) as (2), inserted “and” at end, and struck out former par. (2) which read as follows: “shall order the posting of a cash deposit, bond, or other security, as it deems appropriate, for each entry of the merchandise concerned equal to the estimated average amount by which the foreign market value exceeds the United States price, and”.

Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, § 214(b)(1), in introductory provisions, substituted “information” for “best information” and amended subpars. (A) and (B) generally. Prior to amendment, subpars. (A) and (B) read as follows:

“(A)(i) there is a history of dumping in the United States or elsewhere of the class or kind of the merchandise which is the subject of the investigation, or

“(ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the merchandise which is the subject of the investigation at less than its fair value, and

“(B) there have been massive imports of the class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of the investigation over a relatively short period.”

Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 103–465, §§ 215(b)(2), 219(c)(1), substituted “subsection (d)(2)” for “subsection (d)(1)” and “warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of—” and subpars. (A) and (B) for “warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the date on which suspension of liquidation was first ordered.”

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 103–465, § 212(b)(2)(E), amended heading and text of subsec. (f) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Whenever the Commission or the administering authority 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.”

1988—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1323(b)(1), amended par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (1) read as follows: “Within 160 days after the date on which a petition is filed under section 1673a(b) of this title, or an investigation is commenced under section 1673a(a) of this title, but not before an affirmative determination by the Commission under subsection (a) of this section, the administering authority shall make a determination, based upon the best information available to it at the time of the determination, of whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the merchandise is being sold, or is likely to be sold at less than fair value. If the determination of the administering authority under this subsection is affirmative, the determination shall include the estimated average amount by which the foreign market value exceeds the United States price.”

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1326(d)(1), substituted “(F), or (G)” for “or (F)” in two places.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1323(b)(2), inserted sentence at end relating to notice for extensions under subsec. (b)(1)(B).

Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1324(b)(2), inserted “(at any time after the initiation of the investigation under this part)” after “promptly” in introductory provisions.

Pub. L. 100–418, § 1323(b)(3), inserted sentence at end relating to investigations in which subsec. (b)(1)(B) is applied.

1986—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 99–514 inserted reference to subpar. (F) of section 1677(9) of this title in two places.

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 1323(b) of Pub. L. 100–418 effective Aug. 23, 1988, amendment by section 1324(b)(2) of Pub. L. 100–418 applicable with respect to investigations initiated after Aug. 23, 1988, and amendment by section 1326(d)(1) of Pub. L. 100–418 applicable with respect to investigations initiated after Aug. 23, 1988, and to reviews initiated under section 1673e(c) or 1675 of this title after Aug. 23, 1988, see section 1337(a) to (c) of Pub. L. 100–418, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Plan Amendments Not Required Until January 1, 1989

For provisions directing that if any amendments made by subtitle A or subtitle C of title XI [§§ 1101–1147 and 1171–1177] or title XVIII [§§ 1801–1899A] of Pub. L. 99–514 require an amendment to any plan, such plan amendment shall not be required to be made before the first plan year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 1989, see section 1140 of Pub. L. 99–514, as amended, set out as a note under section 401 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 231 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). · cites it 10× “International Trade Commission (ITC) to reconsider a preliminary determination issued in an antidumping duty investigation under section 733(a)' of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a) (1982). The court certified its order for immediate appeal.”
Belgium v. United States, 551 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 10× “" 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(2)(B). [2] The exception is when there are "critical circumstances," in which case sales up to 90 days prior to the preliminary determination can be subjected to duties and the suspension of liquidation.”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). · cites it 8× “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(e) & 1673d(a)(3). Commerce does not dispute this in any serious way.”
Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 4× “1 In the course of an investigation, Commerce may, at different times, estimate the rate of anti-dumping duty that will ultimately be assessed.”
United States v. Great Am. Ins., 738 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Background On March 26, 1997, the United States Department of Commerce made a preliminary determination, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673b, that freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was being sold in the United States at less than fair value.”
Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “Liquidation of the entries falling within the scope of the review was suspended pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d). On February 12, 1996, Commerce published the final results of the administrative review in the Federal Register.”
Kenda Rubber Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 630 F. Supp. 354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). · cites it 5× “19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a). If the Commission’s determination is affirmative, Commerce conducts an investigation and arrives at a preliminary determination of whether there have been LTFV sales.”
China Steel Corp. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 4× “19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(b)(l)(A), 1673b(c), 1673d(a)(2).”
Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 10 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). · cites it 4× “at 30,652 (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(3) (2006)); see 19 U.”
The United States v. Roses Inc., 706 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “The legal effect of a decision to conduct such an investigation is stated in 19 U.S.C. § 1673b, and does not include suspension of liquidation, except to a limited extent in stated “critical circumstances,” until affirmative preliminary determinations are made as to a reasonable…”
Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. The United States, 745 F.2d 632 (Fed. Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “News 381, 448: The term “investigation” applies to that activity which begins when the authority makes an affirmative determination under section 732(a) or 732(c) [19 U.S.C. § 1673b, § 1673c, or § 1673d], as the case may be.”
Sichuan Changhong Elec. Co. v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 3× “A finding of critical circumstances pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e), is an emergency measure to “provide prompt relief to domestic industries suffering from large volumes of imports, or a surge over a short period in, imports.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(3) — 1 case
Stupp Corp. v. United States, 5 F.4th 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a) — 55 cases
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “International Trade Commission (ITC) to reconsider a preliminary determination issued in an antidumping duty investigation under section 733(a)' of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a) (1982). The court certified its order for immediate appeal.”
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Found. v. United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).
Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 70 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
Connecticut Steel Corp. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 313 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
Kenda Rubber Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 630 F. Supp. 354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a). If the Commission’s determination is affirmative, Commerce conducts an investigation and arrives at a preliminary determination of whether there have been LTFV sales.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(1) — 5 cases
PS Chez Sidney, LLC v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3d 1276 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
Connecticut Steel Corp. v. United States, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coal. v. United States, 2025 CIT 44 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
Comm. for Fair Coke Trade v. United States, 2004 CIT 68 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(1)(A) — 2 cases
PS Chez Sidney, LLC v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
Comm. for Fair Coke Trade v. United States, 2004 CIT 68 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(1)(A)(i) — 1 case
Comm. for Fair Coke Trade v. United States, 2004 CIT 68 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(2) — 1 case
Connecticut Steel Corp. v. United States, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(2)(B) — 1 case
Belgium v. United States, 551 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “" 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(2)(B). [2] The exception is when there are "critical circumstances," in which case sales up to 90 days prior to the preliminary determination can be subjected to duties and the suspension of liquidation.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(l) — 17 cases
Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 357 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Sango Int'l L.P. v. United States, 567 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).
Sony Corp. of Am. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 978 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., 26 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(l)(A)(i) — 2 cases
Sensient Tech. Corp. v. United States, 2004 CIT 115 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
Comm. for Fair Coke Trade v. United States, 2003 CIT 56 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b) — 18 cases
NEC Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Com., 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 933 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).
Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Tech. Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 134 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).
Badger-Powhatan, a Div. of Figgie Intern. v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 1364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 70 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)(1) — 2 cases
SKF USA Inc. v. INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG, 180 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Bioparques de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 2024 CIT 45 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)(1)(A) — 4 cases
JIA Farn Mfg. Co. v. Sec'y of Com., 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 187 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
Solianus, Inc. v. United States, 2019 CIT 77 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).
Wabtec Corp. v. United States, 2025 CIT 160 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
Elkay Mfg. Co. v. United States, 2015 CIT 33 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)(2) — 2 cases
Kenda Rubber Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 630 F. Supp. 354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a). If the Commission’s determination is affirmative, Commerce conducts an investigation and arrives at a preliminary determination of whether there have been LTFV sales.”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 529 F. Supp. 664 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1981).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)(3) — 25 cases
Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1326 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 848 F.3d 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, 2015 CIT 114 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
China Nat'l Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)(l) — 8 cases
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “International Trade Commission (ITC) to reconsider a preliminary determination issued in an antidumping duty investigation under section 733(a)' of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a) (1982). The court certified its order for immediate appeal.”
The United States v. Roses Inc., 706 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “The legal effect of a decision to conduct such an investigation is stated in 19 U.S.C. § 1673b, and does not include suspension of liquidation, except to a limited extent in stated “critical circumstances,” until affirmative preliminary determinations are made as to a reasonable…”
Jeannette Sheet Glass Corp. v. United States, 607 F. Supp. 123 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985).
Artisan Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 2014 CIT 52 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)(l)(A) — 10 cases
Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 846 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
China Steel Corp. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(b)(l)(A), 1673b(c), 1673d(a)(2).”
Sango Int'l, L.P. v. United States, 484 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Walgreen Co. of Deerfield, Il v. United States, 620 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Canadian Wheat Bd. v. United States, 641 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(c) — 5 cases
Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 977 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
Carlisle Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 622 F. Supp. 1071 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985).
Kenda Rubber Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 630 F. Supp. 354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a). If the Commission’s determination is affirmative, Commerce conducts an investigation and arrives at a preliminary determination of whether there have been LTFV sales.”
Bebitz Flanges Works Private Ltd. v. United States, 2020 CIT 27 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).
Home Meridian Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 2012 CIT 120 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(c)(l) — 1 case
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “International Trade Commission (ITC) to reconsider a preliminary determination issued in an antidumping duty investigation under section 733(a)' of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a) (1982). The court certified its order for immediate appeal.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(c)(l)(A) — 1 case
China Steel Corp. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(b)(l)(A), 1673b(c), 1673d(a)(2).”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d) — 37 cases
Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Liquidation of the entries falling within the scope of the review was suspended pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d). On February 12, 1996, Commerce published the final results of the administrative review in the Federal Register.”
Corus Staal BV v. United States Dep't of Com., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “1 In the course of an investigation, Commerce may, at different times, estimate the rate of anti-dumping duty that will ultimately be assessed.”
Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 412 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(1) — 1 case
Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. v. United States, 2023 CIT 22 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(1)(A) — 2 cases
China Mfrs. All., LLC v. United States, 2019 CIT 7 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).
Novolipetsk Steel Pub. Jt. Stock Co. v. United States, 2020 CIT 58 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(1)(B) — 8 cases
Belgium v. United States, 551 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “" 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(2)(B). [2] The exception is when there are "critical circumstances," in which case sales up to 90 days prior to the preliminary determination can be subjected to duties and the suspension of liquidation.”
Dynacraft Indus., Inc. v. United States, 2000 CIT 119 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 473 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 2020 CIT 16 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(1988) — 1 case
F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara San Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1130 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(2) — 32 cases
United States v. Great Am. Ins., 738 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Background On March 26, 1997, the United States Department of Commerce made a preliminary determination, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673b, that freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was being sold in the United States at less than fair value.”
Belgium v. United States, 551 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “" 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(2)(B). [2] The exception is when there are "critical circumstances," in which case sales up to 90 days prior to the preliminary determination can be subjected to duties and the suspension of liquidation.”
Am. Power Pull Corp. v. United States, 2015 CIT 128 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
Ams Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 737 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “1 In the course of an investigation, Commerce may, at different times, estimate the rate of anti-dumping duty that will ultimately be assessed.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(2)(A) — 2 cases
Aspects Furniture Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 2020 CIT 120 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).
Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. v. United States, 2023 CIT 22 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(2)(B) — 1 case
F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara San Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1130 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(3) — 2 cases
Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 10 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). “at 30,652 (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(3) (2006)); see 19 U.”
Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. v. United States, 2023 CIT 22 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(l) — 8 cases
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “International Trade Commission (ITC) to reconsider a preliminary determination issued in an antidumping duty investigation under section 733(a)' of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a) (1982). The court certified its order for immediate appeal.”
Timken Co. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 1 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
Timken Co. v. United States, 715 F. Supp. 373 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).
Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(l)(A) — 2 cases
Harmoni Int'l Spice, Inc. v. United States, 211 F. Supp. 3d 1298 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(l)(A)(i) — 1 case
Thai Pineapple Canning Indus. Corp. v. United States, 2000 CIT 17 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d)(l)(B) — 19 cases
Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “1 In the course of an investigation, Commerce may, at different times, estimate the rate of anti-dumping duty that will ultimately be assessed.”
NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
Belgium v. United States, 551 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “" 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(2)(B). [2] The exception is when there are "critical circumstances," in which case sales up to 90 days prior to the preliminary determination can be subjected to duties and the suspension of liquidation.”
United States v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 789 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e) — 12 cases
Sichuan Changhong Elec. Co. v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “A finding of critical circumstances pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e), is an emergency measure to “provide prompt relief to domestic industries suffering from large volumes of imports, or a surge over a short period in, imports.”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(e) & 1673d(a)(3). Commerce does not dispute this in any serious way.”
Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. The United States, 745 F.2d 632 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “News 381, 448: The term “investigation” applies to that activity which begins when the authority makes an affirmative determination under section 732(a) or 732(c) [19 U.S.C. § 1673b, § 1673c, or § 1673d], as the case may be.”
Wonderful Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e)(1) — 6 cases
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(e) & 1673d(a)(3). Commerce does not dispute this in any serious way.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e)(1)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(e) & 1673d(a)(3). Commerce does not dispute this in any serious way.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e)(1)(B) — 1 case
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(e) & 1673d(a)(3). Commerce does not dispute this in any serious way.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e)(2) — 10 cases
Belgium v. United States, 551 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “" 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(2)(B). [2] The exception is when there are "critical circumstances," in which case sales up to 90 days prior to the preliminary determination can be subjected to duties and the suspension of liquidation.”
Sichuan Changhong Elec. Co. v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “A finding of critical circumstances pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e), is an emergency measure to “provide prompt relief to domestic industries suffering from large volumes of imports, or a surge over a short period in, imports.”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(e) & 1673d(a)(3). Commerce does not dispute this in any serious way.”
ICC Indus., Inc. v. United States, 632 F. Supp. 36 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e)(l) — 5 cases
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(e) & 1673d(a)(3). Commerce does not dispute this in any serious way.”
Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
Techsnabexport, Ltd. v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 469 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. United States, 2005 CIT 11 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e)(l)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co. v. Goldschmidt, 518 F. Supp. 121 (N.D. Tex. 1981).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e)(l)(AHB) — 1 case
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e)(l)(B) — 1 case
China Steel Corp. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(b)(l)(A), 1673b(c), 1673d(a)(2).”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(f) — 5 cases
Belgium v. United States, 551 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “" 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(2)(B). [2] The exception is when there are "critical circumstances," in which case sales up to 90 days prior to the preliminary determination can be subjected to duties and the suspension of liquidation.”
Asociacion Colombiana De Exportadores De Flores v. United States, 6 F. Supp. 2d 865 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
Jeannette Sheet Glass Corp. v. United States, 607 F. Supp. 123 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985).
AOC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).
Nucor Fastener Div. v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
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.