19 U.S.C. § 1673d
Final determinations
Within 75 days after the date of its preliminary determination under section 1673b(b) of this title, the administering authority shall make a final determination of whether the subject merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than its fair value.
In making a determination under this subsection, the administering authority shall disregard any weighted average dumping margin that is de minimis as defined in section 1673b(b)(3) of this title.
If the preliminary determination by the administering authority under section 1673b(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.
For purposes of this subsection and section 1673b(d) of this title, the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 1677e of this title.
If the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis margins, or are determined entirely under section 1677e of this title, the administering authority may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.
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.
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.
1996—Subsec. (a)(3)(A)(i). Pub. L. 104–295 amended Pub. L. 103–465, § 214(b)(2)(A)(i). See 1994 Amendment note below.
1994—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, § 233(a)(5)(V), substituted “subject merchandise” for “merchandise which was the subject of the investigation”.
Subsec. (a)(3)(A)(i). Pub. L. 103–465, § 214(b)(2)(A)(i), as amended by Pub. L. 104–295, inserted “and material injury by reason of dumped imports” after “history of dumping” and substituted “subject merchandise” for “class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of the investigation”.
Subsec. (a)(3)(A)(ii). Pub. L. 103–465, § 214(b)(2)(A)(ii), substituted “subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there would be material injury by reason of such sales” for “merchandise which is the subject of the investigation at less than its fair value”.
Subsec. (a)(3)(B). Pub. L. 103–465, § 214(b)(2)(A)(iii), substituted “subject merchandise” for “merchandise which is the subject of the investigation”.
Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 103–465, § 213(b), added par. (4).
Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, § 212(b)(2)(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(b)(2)(B), amended subpar. (A) generally, substituting present provisions for provisions requiring, in the case of an affirmative critical circumstances determination, a further finding as to whether retroactive imposition of antidumping duties on the subject merchandise would be necessary to prevent recurrence of material injury caused by massive imports of the merchandise over a relatively short period of time.
Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, § 219(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 section 1673b(d)(2) of this title” for “under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1673b(d) of this title the suspension of liquidation and the posting of a cash deposit, bond, or other security”.
Subsec. (c)(2)(A). Pub. L. 103–465, § 219(c)(6), substituted “1673b(d)(2)” for “1671b(d)(1)”.
Subsec. (c)(2)(B). Pub. L. 103–465, § 219(c)(7), substituted “1673b(d)(1)(B)” for “1673b(d)(2)”.
Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Pub. L. 103–465, § 219(c)(8), substituted “1673b(d)(1)(B)” for “1673b(d)(2)”.
Subsec. (c)(5). Pub. L. 103–465, § 219(b)(2), added par. (5).
1988—Subsec. (b)(4)(A). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1324(b)(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 a finding as to whether the material injury is by reason of massive imports described in subsection (a)(3) of this section to an extent that, in order to prevent such material injury from recurring, it is necessary to impose the duty imposed by section 1673 of this title retroactively on those imports.”
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1333(a), added subsec. (e).
1984—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 98–573, § 605(b)(1), inserted provision that such findings may be affirmative even though the preliminary determination under section 1673b(e)(1) of this title was negative.
Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 98–573, § 602(c), inserted “, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation,” in provisions after subpar. (B).
Subsec. (c)(3)(A). Pub. L. 98–573, § 605(b)(3), inserted reference to par. (4).
Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 98–573, § 605(b)(2), added par. (4).
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 (
Amendment by section 1333(a) of Pub. L. 100–418 effective
Amendment by section 602(c) 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
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 441
cases (52 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(II). In proceedings involving non-market economy countries, including China, Com- merce presumes that exporters and producers are state- controlled, and assigns them a single state-wide rate.”
Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “It is true, as the government points out, that 19 U.S.C. § 1673d applies on its face only to investigations, not periodic adrhin-istrative reviews.”
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “(4) Within 75 days of its preliminary determination (subject to extension of up to 135 days, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(2)), ITA makes a final determination respecting the sale of merchandise at LTFV.”
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “Remand Results at 14 (“Generally we have looked to [19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)], which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents we did not examine individually in an administrative review.”
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. § 1673d(a)(3) (1994) (emphasis added).”
Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). “” Otherwise lacking statutory guidance, 19 Commerce follows 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5) (method for determining the estimated all-others rate) when calculating the dumping margin for separate rate respondents.”
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “To determine the dumping margin for non-mandatory respondents in NME cases (that is, to determine the “separate rates” margin), Commerce normally relies on the “all others rate” provision of 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5). See Issues & Decision Mem.”
Thuan an Prod. Trading & Serv. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 152 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “With respect to the merits of Tafishco's claim, 19 U.S.C § 1673d instructs that Commerce may establish two kinds of rates.”
Soc Trang Seafood Jt. Stock Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 75 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “§ 1677f-1(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B), (c)(5) consistently use the plural "exporters" and "producers" to refer to the individually investigated respondents, the all-others rate must be based on the rates of multiple respondents.”
Nippon Steel Corp., Nkk Corp., Kawasaki Steel Corp., & Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. v. United States, & Mittal Steel USA Isg Inc., 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Congress placed responsibility for the LTFV determination with industry experts at the Department of Commerce, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(l), and placed responsibility for the material injury determination with trade experts at the Commission.”
Icc Indus., Inc., Icd Grp., Inc. v. The United States, 812 F.2d 694 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a), (b) (1982). The imposition of retroactive antidumping duties is to prevent the injury from recurring or continuing and inhibits injury by importers who attempt to circumvent the antidumping laws by shipping in massive imports after an antidumping…”
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “” The matter in this instance was, of course, the ITC’s final negative determination that it made pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673d, see 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(2)(B)(ii), which this court found “unlawful” in accordance with 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a) — 29 cases
Nec Corp. & Hnsx Supercomputers, Inc. v. United States & Dep't of Com., & Cray Rsch., Inc., 151 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Royal Bus. MacHines, Inc. v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 1007 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1980).
Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 538 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
Rhone Poulenc S.A. v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 607 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
Rhone Poulenc, S.A. v. United States, 592 F. Supp. 1318 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(1) — 18 cases
USEC Inc. v. United States, 34 F. App'x 725 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2017 CIT 62 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
Allied Pac. Food (Dalian) Co. Ltd. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
Nat'l Steel Corp. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 1126 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
JIA Farn Mfg. Co. v. Sec'y of Com., 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 187 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(2) — 3 cases
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “(4) Within 75 days of its preliminary determination (subject to extension of up to 135 days, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(2)), ITA makes a final determination respecting the sale of merchandise at LTFV.”
Corus Staal BV v. United States Dep't of Com., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica, S.A. v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 876 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(2)(A) — 2 cases
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).
Confederación de Asociaciones Agrícolas del Estado De Sinaloa, A.C. v. United States, 2020 CIT 93 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(2)(A)(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. § 1673d(a)(3) — 14 cases
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. § 1673d(a)(3) (1994) (emphasis added).”
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 432 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
ICC Indus., Inc. v. United States, 632 F. Supp. 36 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, 2023 CIT 162 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(3)(A) — 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. § 1673d(a)(3)(A)(ii) — 3 cases
Internor Trade, Inc. v. United States, 651 F. Supp. 1456 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2003 CIT 151 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2010 CIT 30 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(3)(AHB) — 1 case
Icc Indus., Inc., Icd Grp., Inc. v. The United States, 812 F.2d 694 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a), (b) (1982). The imposition of retroactive antidumping duties is to prevent the injury from recurring or continuing and inhibits injury by importers who attempt to circumvent the antidumping laws by shipping in massive imports after an antidumping…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(3)(B) — 2 cases
Canadian Meat Council v. United States, 680 F. Supp. 390 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2013 CIT 76 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(4) — 15 cases
Stupp Corp. v. United States, 5 F.4th 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 324 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
Union Steel v. United States, 2012 CIT 24 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
Dupont Teijin Films Usa, Lp v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Stupp Co. v. United States, 2023 CIT 23 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(l) — 22 cases
Nippon Steel Corp., Nkk Corp., Kawasaki Steel Corp., & Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. v. United States, & Mittal Steel USA Isg Inc., 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Congress placed responsibility for the LTFV determination with industry experts at the Department of Commerce, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(l), and placed responsibility for the material injury determination with trade experts at the Commission.”
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “(4) Within 75 days of its preliminary determination (subject to extension of up to 135 days, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(2)), ITA makes a final determination respecting the sale of merchandise at LTFV.”
Papierfabrik August Koehler Ag v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).
Viraj Grp. v. United States, 476 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. The United States, 745 F.2d 632 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b) — 63 cases
Cs Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd. v. United States, 832 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Badger-Powhatan, a Div. of Figgie Intern. v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 1364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
Bratsk Aluminium Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 70 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
Goss Graphics Sys., Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(1) — 14 cases
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).
Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 673 F. Supp. 454 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987).
Iwatsu Elec. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 758 F. Supp. 1506 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991).
USEC Inc. v. United States, 34 F. App'x 725 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Gen. Motors Corp. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 697 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(1)(A)(i) — 3 cases
Full Member Subgroup of the Am. Inst. v. United States, 81 F.4th 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Full Member Subgroup of the Am. Inst. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 2004 CIT 49 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(1)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Rhone Poulenc, S.A. v. United States, 592 F. Supp. 1318 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(1)(B) — 2 cases
Goss Graphics Sys., Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
Eregli Demir Ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. Itc (Fed. Cir. 2026).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(1994) — 4 cases
Taiwan Semiconductor Indus. Ass'n v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).
Steel Auth. of India, Ltd. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 900 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
Taiwan Semiconductor Indus. Ass'n v. United States, 105 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
Taiwan Semiconductor Indus. Ass'n v. United States, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(2) — 5 cases
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “(4) Within 75 days of its preliminary determination (subject to extension of up to 135 days, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(2)), ITA makes a final determination respecting the sale of merchandise at LTFV.”
Pistachio Grp. of Ass'n of Food Indus., Inc. v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 1340 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
Papierfabrik August Koehler Ag v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).
Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Melamine Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 2 Ct. Int'l Trade 113 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1981).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(2)(B) — 1 case
Alloy Piping Prods., Inc. v. Kanzen Tetsu Sdn. Bhd., 334 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(3) — 2 cases
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “(4) Within 75 days of its preliminary determination (subject to extension of up to 135 days, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(2)), ITA makes a final determination respecting the sale of merchandise at LTFV.”
Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4) — 1 case
Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A) — 5 cases
Icc Indus., Inc., Icd Grp., Inc. v. The United States, 812 F.2d 694 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a), (b) (1982). The imposition of retroactive antidumping duties is to prevent the injury from recurring or continuing and inhibits injury by importers who attempt to circumvent the antidumping laws by shipping in massive imports after an antidumping…”
Tung Mung Dev. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
ICC Indus., Inc. v. United States, 632 F. Supp. 36 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
Pay Less Here, LLC v. United States, 2025 CIT 50 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2025).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i) — 4 cases
Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, 2023 CIT 162 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
MTD Prods. Inc. v. United States, 2023 CIT 34 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
MTD Prods. Inc. v. United States, 2023 CIT 34 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(ii) — 4 cases
Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, 2023 CIT 162 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
MTD Prods. Inc. v. United States, 2023 CIT 34 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
MTD Prods. Inc. v. United States, 2023 CIT 34 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2025).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(B) — 3 cases
Metallverken Nederland B v. v. United States, 728 F. Supp. 730 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).
R-M Indus., Inc. v. United States, 848 F. Supp. 204 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 2013 CIT 44 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(5) — 1 case
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 324 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(i)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Rhone Poulenc, S.A. v. United States, 592 F. Supp. 1318 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(l) — 58 cases
Nippon Steel Corp., Nkk Corp., Kawasaki Steel Corp., & Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. v. United States, & Mittal Steel USA Isg Inc., 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Congress placed responsibility for the LTFV determination with industry experts at the Department of Commerce, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(l), and placed responsibility for the material injury determination with trade experts at the Commission.”
Usec, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
Maine Potato Council v. United States, 613 F. Supp. 1237 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985).
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “(4) Within 75 days of its preliminary determination (subject to extension of up to 135 days, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(2)), ITA makes a final determination respecting the sale of merchandise at LTFV.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(l)(1988) — 1 case
Comm. of Dom. Steel Wire Rope & Specialty Cable Mfrs. v. United States, 818 F. Supp. 376 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(l)(A) — 5 cases
Nat'l Ass'n of Mirror Mfrs. v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 642 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
Am. Bearing Mfrs. Ass'n v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
Taiwan Semiconductor Indus. Ass'n v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
BMT Commodity Corp. v. United States, 667 F. Supp. 880 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(l)(A)(i) — 6 cases
Copperweld Corp. v. United States, 682 F. Supp. 552 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
Icc Indus., Inc., Icd Grp., Inc. v. The United States, 812 F.2d 694 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a), (b) (1982). The imposition of retroactive antidumping duties is to prevent the injury from recurring or continuing and inhibits injury by importers who attempt to circumvent the antidumping laws by shipping in massive imports after an antidumping…”
Am. Bearing Mfrs. Ass'n v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
Hyundai Pipe Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 650 F. Supp. 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(l)(A)(ii) — 4 cases
Rhone Poulenc S.A. v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 607 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
Am. Bearing Mfrs. Ass'n v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
Papierfabrik August Koehler Ag v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).
Philipp Bros., Inc. v. United States, 640 F. Supp. 1340 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(l)(B) — 2 cases
Kyocera Solar, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 844 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
BMT Commodity Corp. v. United States, 667 F. Supp. 880 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c) — 9 cases
Thuan an Prod. Trading & Serv. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 152 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “With respect to the merits of Tafishco's claim, 19 U.S.C § 1673d instructs that Commerce may establish two kinds of rates.”
Asociacion Colombiana De Exportadores De Flores v. United States, 6 F. Supp. 2d 865 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
Tung Mung Dev. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
Tung Mung Dev. Co. v. United States, 2001 CIT 83 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
Thuan An Prod. Trading & Serv. Co. v. United States, 2019 CIT 83 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1) — 3 cases
Bldg. Sys. de Mexico, S.A. de C v. v. United States, 2020 CIT 104 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 947 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs.' Coal. v. United States, 2015 CIT 105 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(A) — 1 case
Papierfabrik August Koehler AG v. United States, 2012 CIT 5 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Shandong Rongxin Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2019 CIT 151 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B) — 6 cases
Soc Trang Seafood Jt. Stock Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 75 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “§ 1677f-1(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B), (c)(5) consistently use the plural "exporters" and "producers" to refer to the individually investigated respondents, the all-others rate must be based on the rates of multiple respondents.”
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs.' Coalition v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1368 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
Jilin Forest Indus. Jinqiao Flooring Grp. Co. v. United States, 2023 CIT 14 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
Primesource Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. United States, 111 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. v. United States, 2023 CIT 22 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(3) — 1 case
Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 2020 CIT 16 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(II) — 1 case
Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(II). In proceedings involving non-market economy countries, including China, Com- merce presumes that exporters and producers are state- controlled, and assigns them a single state-wide rate.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(i) — 20 cases
China Mfrs. All., LLC v. United States, 2019 CIT 7 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).
China Mfrs. All. v. United States, 1 F.4th 1028 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Thuan an Prod. Trading & Serv. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 152 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “With respect to the merits of Tafishco's claim, 19 U.S.C § 1673d instructs that Commerce may establish two kinds of rates.”
Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 324 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(ii) — 4 cases
Goodluck India Ltd. v. United States, 2023 CIT 164 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 947 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs.' Coal. v. United States, 2019 CIT 17 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).
Oman Fasteners, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2025).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(C) — 1 case
Thai Pineapple Canning Indus. Corp. v. United States, 2000 CIT 17 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(2) — 27 cases
Am. Lamb Co. v. The United States, & New Zealand Meat Prods. Bd., Intervenors, 785 F.2d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “(4) Within 75 days of its preliminary determination (subject to extension of up to 135 days, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a)(2)), ITA makes a final determination respecting the sale of merchandise at LTFV.”
Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1185 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “” The matter in this instance was, of course, the ITC’s final negative determination that it made pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673d, see 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(2)(B)(ii), which this court found “unlawful” in accordance with 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).”
Melamine Chemicals, Inc. v. The United States, 732 F.2d 924 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(3) — 1 case
Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(4) — 3 cases
Holmes Prods. Corp. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 356 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. v. United States, 2023 CIT 22 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(4)(A) — 4 cases
Torrington Co. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 1189 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. United States, 2005 CIT 11 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2003 CIT 151 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2010 CIT 30 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(4)(B) — 4 cases
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 2010 CIT 25 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
Ehwa Diamond Indus. Co. v. United States, 2010 CIT 26 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
Shinhan Diamond Indus. Co. v. United States, 2010 CIT 24 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
Diamond Sawblades Mfg. Coal. v. United States, 2010 CIT 23 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5) — 45 cases
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. § 1673d(a)(3) (1994) (emphasis added).”
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “Remand Results at 14 (“Generally we have looked to [19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)], which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents we did not examine individually in an administrative review.”
Soc Trang Seafood Jt. Stock Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 75 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “§ 1677f-1(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B), (c)(5) consistently use the plural "exporters" and "producers" to refer to the individually investigated respondents, the all-others rate must be based on the rates of multiple respondents.”
Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “It is true, as the government points out, that 19 U.S.C. § 1673d applies on its face only to investigations, not periodic adrhin-istrative reviews.”
Shenzhen Xinboda Indus. Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 74 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(2006) — 1 case
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “Remand Results at 14 (“Generally we have looked to [19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)], which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents we did not examine individually in an administrative review.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(A) — 56 cases
Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(II). In proceedings involving non-market economy countries, including China, Com- merce presumes that exporters and producers are state- controlled, and assigns them a single state-wide rate.”
United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 2018 CIT 139 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). “” Otherwise lacking statutory guidance, 19 Commerce follows 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5) (method for determining the estimated all-others rate) when calculating the dumping margin for separate rate respondents.”
Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “It is true, as the government points out, that 19 U.S.C. § 1673d applies on its face only to investigations, not periodic adrhin-istrative reviews.”
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 2015 CIT 7 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(B) — 51 cases
Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(II). In proceedings involving non-market economy countries, including China, Com- merce presumes that exporters and producers are state- controlled, and assigns them a single state-wide rate.”
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “To determine the dumping margin for non-mandatory respondents in NME cases (that is, to determine the “separate rates” margin), Commerce normally relies on the “all others rate” provision of 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5). See Issues & Decision Mem.”
Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). “” Otherwise lacking statutory guidance, 19 Commerce follows 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5) (method for determining the estimated all-others rate) when calculating the dumping margin for separate rate respondents.”
Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “It is true, as the government points out, that 19 U.S.C. § 1673d applies on its face only to investigations, not periodic adrhin-istrative reviews.”
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 848 F.3d 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(B)(i) — 1 case
Tung Mung Dev. Co. v. United States, 2001 CIT 83 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(6)(B) — 1 case
Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(II). In proceedings involving non-market economy countries, including China, Com- merce presumes that exporters and producers are state- controlled, and assigns them a single state-wide rate.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(l) — 3 cases
Am. Power Pull Corp. v. United States, 2015 CIT 128 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
Tung Mung Dev. Co. v. United States, 2001 CIT 83 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(l)(A) — 2 cases
Papierfabrik August Koehler Ag v. United States, 646 F.3d 904 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Papierfabrik August Koehler Ag v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(l)(B) — 7 cases
Daewoo Elec. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 931 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 215 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 181 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
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).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(l)(B)(i) — 10 cases
Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “It is true, as the government points out, that 19 U.S.C. § 1673d applies on its face only to investigations, not periodic adrhin-istrative reviews.”
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. § 1673d(a)(3) (1994) (emphasis added).”
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 2017 CIT 32 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
Tung Mung Dev. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(l)(B)(ii) — 10 cases
Nat'l Fisheries Inst., Inc. v. United States Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 465 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 2017 CIT 32 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
Grobest & I-Mei Indus. (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2012 CIT 100 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(l)(C) — 4 cases
Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 977 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2015 CIT 39 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
Shandong Huarong Mach. Co. v. United States, 2008 CIT 135 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).
Thai Pineapple Canning Indus. Corp. v. United States, 2000 CIT 17 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(l)(b)(i) — 1 case
UCF Am. Inc. v. United States, 919 F. Supp. 435 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(d) — 11 cases
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Altx, Inc. v. United States, 167 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 412 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “” The matter in this instance was, of course, the ITC’s final negative determination that it made pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673d, see 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(2)(B)(ii), which this court found “unlawful” in accordance with 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(e) — 30 cases
Goodluck India Ltd. v. United States, 11 F.4th 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria & Agricultura v. United States, 2012 CIT 149 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
Alloy Piping Prods., Inc. v. United States, 201 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
Timken U.S. Corp. & Timken Nadellager, Gmbh v. United States, 434 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Kaiyuan Grp. Corp. v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(e)(2) — 4 cases
Sango Int'l, L.P. v. United States, 484 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “” The matter in this instance was, of course, the ITC’s final negative determination that it made pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673d, see 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(2)(B)(ii), which this court found “unlawful” in accordance with 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).”
Bell Supply Co. v. United States, 83 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
UCF Am. Inc. v. United States, 870 F. Supp. 1120 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(e)(5) — 5 cases
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “Remand Results at 14 (“Generally we have looked to [19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)], which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents we did not examine individually in an administrative review.”
Bristol Metals L.P. v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
Xiamen Int'l Trade & Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2013 CIT 152 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
Schaeffler Italia S.R.L. v. United States, 781 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(e)(5)(A) — 1 case
Longkou Haimeng Mach. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(e)(5)(B) — 1 case
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “Remand Results at 14 (“Generally we have looked to [19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)], which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents we did not examine individually in an administrative review.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(e)(l)(B) — 2 cases
Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
Thai Pineapple Canning Indus. Corp. v. United States, 2000 CIT 17 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(e)(l)(B)(ii) — 1 case
Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(II). In proceedings involving non-market economy countries, including China, Com- merce presumes that exporters and producers are state- controlled, and assigns them a single state-wide rate.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(l) — 1 case
Acciai Speciali Terni S.P.A. v. United States, 142 F. Supp. 2d 969 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
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.