U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— TARIFF ACT OF 1930 › Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES › Part Part III— Reviews; Other Actions Regarding Agreements › Subpart subpart a— review of amount of duty and agreements other than quantitative restriction agreements

19 U.S.C. § 1675a

Special rules for section 1675(b) and 1675(c) reviews

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury(1) In generalIn a review conducted under section 1675(b) or (c) of this title, the Commission shall determine whether revocation of an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated. The Commission shall take into account—(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted,(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement,(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and(D) in an antidumping proceeding under section 1675(c) of this title, the findings of the administering authority regarding duty absorption under section 1675(a)(4) of this title.(2) VolumeIn evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors, including—(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the exporting country,(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories,(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such merchandise into countries other than the United States, and(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.(3) PriceIn evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider whether—(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.(4) Impact on the industryIn evaluating the likely impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to—(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity,(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.The Commission shall evaluate all relevant economic factors described in this paragraph within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.(5) Basis for determination

The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under this subsection shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated. In making that determination, the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.

(6) Magnitude of margin of dumping and net countervailable subsidy; nature of countervailable subsidy

In making a determination under section 1675(b) or (c) of this title, the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If a countervailable subsidy is involved the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.

(7) Cumulation

For purposes of this subsection, the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or (c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.

(8) Special rule for regional industries

In a review under section 1675(b) or (c) of this title involving a regional industry, the Commission may base its determination on the regional industry defined in the original investigation under this subtitle, another region that satisfies the criteria established in section 1677(4)(C) of this title, or the United States as a whole. In determining if a regional industry analysis is appropriate for the determination in the review, the Commission shall consider whether the criteria established in section 1677(4)(C) of this title are likely to be satisfied if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.

(b) Determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy(1) In generalIn a review conducted under section 1675(c) of this title, the administering authority shall determine whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or termination of a suspended investigation under section 1671c of this title would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The administering authority shall consider—(A) the net countervailable subsidy determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews, and(B) whether any change in the program which gave rise to the net countervailable subsidy described in subparagraph (A) has occurred that is likely to affect that net countervailable subsidy.(2) Consideration of other factorsIf good cause is shown, the administering authority shall also consider—(A) programs determined to provide countervailable subsidies in other investigations or reviews under this subtitle, but only to the extent that such programs—(i) can potentially be used by the exporters or producers subject to the review under section 1675(c) of this title, and(ii) did not exist at the time that the countervailing duty order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, and(B) programs newly alleged to provide countervailable subsidies but only to the extent that the administering authority makes an affirmative countervailing duty determination with respect to such programs and with respect to the exporters or producers subject to the review.(3) Net countervailable subsidy

The administering authority shall provide to the Commission the net countervailable subsidy that is likely to prevail if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated. The administering authority shall normally choose a net countervailable subsidy that was determined under section 1671d of this title or subsection (a) or (b)(1) of section 1675 of this title.

(4) Special rule(A) Treatment of zero and de minimis rates

A net countervailable subsidy described in paragraph (1)(A) that is zero or de minimis shall not by itself require the administering authority to determine that revocation of a countervailing duty order or termination of a suspended investigation would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.

(B) Application of de minimis standards

For purposes of this paragraph, the administering authority shall apply the de minimis standards applicable to reviews conducted under subsections (a) and (b)(1) of section 1675 of this title.

(c) Determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping(1) In generalIn a review conducted under section 1675(c) of this title, the administering authority shall determine whether revocation of an antidumping duty order or termination of a suspended investigation under section 1673c of this title would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of sales of the subject merchandise at less than fair value. The administering authority shall consider—(A) the weighted average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews, and(B) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping duty order or acceptance of the suspension agreement.(2) Consideration of other factors

If good cause is shown, the administering authority shall also consider such other price, cost, market, or economic factors as it deems relevant.

(3) Magnitude of the margin of dumping

The administering authority shall provide to the Commission the magnitude of the margin of dumping that is likely to prevail if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated. The administering authority shall normally choose a margin that was determined under section 1673d of this title or under subsection (a) or (b)(1) of section 1675 of this title.

(4) Special rule(A) Treatment of zero or de minimis margins

A dumping margin described in paragraph (1)(A) that is zero or de minimis shall not by itself require the administering authority to determine that revocation of an antidumping duty order or termination of a suspended investigation would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of sales at less than fair value.

(B) Application of de minimis standards

For purposes of this paragraph, the administering authority shall apply the de minimis standards applicable to reviews conducted under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1675 of this title.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 752, as added Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 221(a), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4865.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section 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 an Effective Date of 1994 Amendment note under section 1671 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 100 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). · cites it 38× “at Tab 8.) Additionally, the record shows that there are non-price factors that [¶] ]] questionnaire response indicated were significant in purchasing decisions, such as ability to meet quality and delivery requirements.”
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). · cites it 34× “” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). For purposes of determining whether the likely volume would be significant, the Commission “shall consider all relevant economic factors,” including likely increases in production capacity or current unused capacity in the exporting country, barriers…”
Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). · cites it 34× “at 16 ; see 19 U.S.C. § 1675a. Plaintiffs contend that because the “likely” standard requires a probability — and not merely a possibility — that volume, price effects, and adverse impact will occur and increase, the evidence must show that it is a “rational economic option” to…”
Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 28× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). The ITC appears to have considered two additional subfac-tors as well, for a total of six subfactors: (5) the extent to which the exporting countries’ SLP production was export-driven; and (6) the international business affiliations of the…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 35× “The court notes the following with respect to the ITC’s finding that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C)].” Remand Determination at 15-16.”
Usinor, Beautor, Haironville, Sollac Atlantique, Sollac Lorraine v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 11× “Second, while the statute gives no guidance as to what the ITC needs to consider to fulfill the “no discernible adverse impact” standard, the Commission argues that 19 U.S.C. § 1675a (a)(7) makes contingent the cumulation prohibition in five year reviews on a determination that…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). · cites it 17× “The ITC further determined that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(c)].” Id. In Nippon IV, the court remanded the ITC’s findings on likely impact with…”
Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 19× “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 19× “§ 1675 (c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a), the Court finds that the Commission did not use the proper legal standard with regard to the statutory term “likely.”
Timken Co. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 19× “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 15× “Defendant’s Motion at 29-30; 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). The Commission properly relied on pre-order evidence, among other considerations, in accordance with the express statutory mandate.”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 494 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 7× “The Commission also considered the statutory factors prescribed at 19 U.S.C. § 1675a, concluding that revocation of the subject orders would have a materially adverse affect on the domestic industry.”
Show all 100 citing cases →
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C) — 1 case
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “The court notes the following with respect to the ITC’s finding that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C)].” Remand Determination at 15-16.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(c) — 1 case
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “The ITC further determined that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(c)].” Id. In Nippon IV, the court remanded the ITC’s findings on likely impact with…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(2) — 1 case
Usinor v. United States, 2002 CIT 70 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(2)(A) — 2 cases
Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(2)(B) — 1 case
Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(4) — 1 case
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a) — 15 cases
Timken Co. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “Defendant’s Motion at 29-30; 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). The Commission properly relied on pre-order evidence, among other considerations, in accordance with the express statutory mandate.”
Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 421 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “§ 1675 (c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a), the Court finds that the Commission did not use the proper legal standard with regard to the statutory term “likely.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1) — 13 cases
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “Defendant’s Motion at 29-30; 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). The Commission properly relied on pre-order evidence, among other considerations, in accordance with the express statutory mandate.”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “The court notes the following with respect to the ITC’s finding that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C)].” Remand Determination at 15-16.”
Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. v. United States, 2024 CIT 34 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 121 F. Supp. 2d 684 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1)(A) — 4 cases
Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “§ 1675 (c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a), the Court finds that the Commission did not use the proper legal standard with regard to the statutory term “likely.”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “The court notes the following with respect to the ITC’s finding that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C)].” Remand Determination at 15-16.”
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “Defendant’s Motion at 29-30; 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). The Commission properly relied on pre-order evidence, among other considerations, in accordance with the express statutory mandate.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1)(B) — 3 cases
Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “The court notes the following with respect to the ITC’s finding that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C)].” Remand Determination at 15-16.”
Comm. for Fairly Traded Venezuelan Cement v. United States, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1)(C) — 1 case
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “The court notes the following with respect to the ITC’s finding that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C)].” Remand Determination at 15-16.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1)(D) — 3 cases
SNR Roulements v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “The court notes the following with respect to the ITC’s finding that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C)].” Remand Determination at 15-16.”
NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 2000 CIT 64 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2) — 23 cases
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “at Tab 8.) Additionally, the record shows that there are non-price factors that [¶] ]] questionnaire response indicated were significant in purchasing decisions, such as ability to meet quality and delivery requirements.”
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). For purposes of determining whether the likely volume would be significant, the Commission “shall consider all relevant economic factors,” including likely increases in production capacity or current unused capacity in the exporting country, barriers…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “The ITC further determined that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(c)].” Id. In Nippon IV, the court remanded the ITC’s findings on likely impact with…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “The court notes the following with respect to the ITC’s finding that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C)].” Remand Determination at 15-16.”
Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “at 16 ; see 19 U.S.C. § 1675a. Plaintiffs contend that because the “likely” standard requires a probability — and not merely a possibility — that volume, price effects, and adverse impact will occur and increase, the evidence must show that it is a “rational economic option” to…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A) — 12 cases
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “The court notes the following with respect to the ITC’s finding that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C)].” Remand Determination at 15-16.”
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). For purposes of determining whether the likely volume would be significant, the Commission “shall consider all relevant economic factors,” including likely increases in production capacity or current unused capacity in the exporting country, barriers…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 494 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “The Commission also considered the statutory factors prescribed at 19 U.S.C. § 1675a, concluding that revocation of the subject orders would have a materially adverse affect on the domestic industry.”
Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “at 16 ; see 19 U.S.C. § 1675a. Plaintiffs contend that because the “likely” standard requires a probability — and not merely a possibility — that volume, price effects, and adverse impact will occur and increase, the evidence must show that it is a “rational economic option” to…”
Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). The ITC appears to have considered two additional subfac-tors as well, for a total of six subfactors: (5) the extent to which the exporting countries’ SLP production was export-driven; and (6) the international business affiliations of the…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)(D) — 1 case
Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). The ITC appears to have considered two additional subfac-tors as well, for a total of six subfactors: (5) the extent to which the exporting countries’ SLP production was export-driven; and (6) the international business affiliations of the…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(B) — 2 cases
Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). The ITC appears to have considered two additional subfac-tors as well, for a total of six subfactors: (5) the extent to which the exporting countries’ SLP production was export-driven; and (6) the international business affiliations of the…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “The court notes the following with respect to the ITC’s finding that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C)].” Remand Determination at 15-16.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(C) — 2 cases
Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). The ITC appears to have considered two additional subfac-tors as well, for a total of six subfactors: (5) the extent to which the exporting countries’ SLP production was export-driven; and (6) the international business affiliations of the…”
Siderca S.A.I.C. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(D) — 4 cases
Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “at 16 ; see 19 U.S.C. § 1675a. Plaintiffs contend that because the “likely” standard requires a probability — and not merely a possibility — that volume, price effects, and adverse impact will occur and increase, the evidence must show that it is a “rational economic option” to…”
Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). The ITC appears to have considered two additional subfac-tors as well, for a total of six subfactors: (5) the extent to which the exporting countries’ SLP production was export-driven; and (6) the international business affiliations of the…”
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). For purposes of determining whether the likely volume would be significant, the Commission “shall consider all relevant economic factors,” including likely increases in production capacity or current unused capacity in the exporting country, barriers…”
Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(c) — 1 case
Nevinnomysskiy Azot v. United States, 2007 CIT 130 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3) — 14 cases
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “at Tab 8.) Additionally, the record shows that there are non-price factors that [¶] ]] questionnaire response indicated were significant in purchasing decisions, such as ability to meet quality and delivery requirements.”
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). For purposes of determining whether the likely volume would be significant, the Commission “shall consider all relevant economic factors,” including likely increases in production capacity or current unused capacity in the exporting country, barriers…”
Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). The ITC appears to have considered two additional subfac-tors as well, for a total of six subfactors: (5) the extent to which the exporting countries’ SLP production was export-driven; and (6) the international business affiliations of the…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “The ITC further determined that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(c)].” Id. In Nippon IV, the court remanded the ITC’s findings on likely impact with…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3)(A) — 6 cases
Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). For purposes of determining whether the likely volume would be significant, the Commission “shall consider all relevant economic factors,” including likely increases in production capacity or current unused capacity in the exporting country, barriers…”
Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “at 16 ; see 19 U.S.C. § 1675a. Plaintiffs contend that because the “likely” standard requires a probability — and not merely a possibility — that volume, price effects, and adverse impact will occur and increase, the evidence must show that it is a “rational economic option” to…”
Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). The ITC appears to have considered two additional subfac-tors as well, for a total of six subfactors: (5) the extent to which the exporting countries’ SLP production was export-driven; and (6) the international business affiliations of the…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “The court notes the following with respect to the ITC’s finding that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(C)].” Remand Determination at 15-16.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3)(B) — 1 case
AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 2012 CIT 139 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4) — 10 cases
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). For purposes of determining whether the likely volume would be significant, the Commission “shall consider all relevant economic factors,” including likely increases in production capacity or current unused capacity in the exporting country, barriers…”
Timken Co. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “at Tab 8.) Additionally, the record shows that there are non-price factors that [¶] ]] questionnaire response indicated were significant in purchasing decisions, such as ability to meet quality and delivery requirements.”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “The ITC further determined that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(c)].” Id. In Nippon IV, the court remanded the ITC’s findings on likely impact with…”
Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4)(A) — 3 cases
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). For purposes of determining whether the likely volume would be significant, the Commission “shall consider all relevant economic factors,” including likely increases in production capacity or current unused capacity in the exporting country, barriers…”
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “at Tab 8.) Additionally, the record shows that there are non-price factors that [¶] ]] questionnaire response indicated were significant in purchasing decisions, such as ability to meet quality and delivery requirements.”
Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “at 16 ; see 19 U.S.C. § 1675a. Plaintiffs contend that because the “likely” standard requires a probability — and not merely a possibility — that volume, price effects, and adverse impact will occur and increase, the evidence must show that it is a “rational economic option” to…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5) — 7 cases
Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
Timken Co. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “at 16 ; see 19 U.S.C. § 1675a. Plaintiffs contend that because the “likely” standard requires a probability — and not merely a possibility — that volume, price effects, and adverse impact will occur and increase, the evidence must show that it is a “rational economic option” to…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “The ITC further determined that “the domestic industry has returned to a relatively healthy state and is not currently in a vulnerable condition as contemplated by [19 U.S.C. § 1675a(1)(c)].” Id. In Nippon IV, the court remanded the ITC’s findings on likely impact with…”
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). For purposes of determining whether the likely volume would be significant, the Commission “shall consider all relevant economic factors,” including likely increases in production capacity or current unused capacity in the exporting country, barriers…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6) — 11 cases
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). For purposes of determining whether the likely volume would be significant, the Commission “shall consider all relevant economic factors,” including likely increases in production capacity or current unused capacity in the exporting country, barriers…”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 494 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “The Commission also considered the statutory factors prescribed at 19 U.S.C. § 1675a, concluding that revocation of the subject orders would have a materially adverse affect on the domestic industry.”
Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
Neenah Foundry Co. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 766 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
Neenah Foundry Co. v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7) — 42 cases
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “at Tab 8.) Additionally, the record shows that there are non-price factors that [¶] ]] questionnaire response indicated were significant in purchasing decisions, such as ability to meet quality and delivery requirements.”
Usinor, Beautor, Haironville, Sollac Atlantique, Sollac Lorraine v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “Second, while the statute gives no guidance as to what the ITC needs to consider to fulfill the “no discernible adverse impact” standard, the Commission argues that 19 U.S.C. § 1675a (a)(7) makes contingent the cumulation prohibition in five year reviews on a determination that…”
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 601 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “§ 1675 (c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a), the Court finds that the Commission did not use the proper legal standard with regard to the statutory term “likely.”
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “Defendant’s Motion at 29-30; 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). The Commission properly relied on pre-order evidence, among other considerations, in accordance with the express statutory mandate.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(8) — 1 case
Comm. for Fairly Traded Venezuelan Cement v. United States, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(8)(2000) — 1 case
Comm. for Fairly Traded Venezuelan Cement v. United States, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(B) — 1 case
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 494 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “The Commission also considered the statutory factors prescribed at 19 U.S.C. § 1675a, concluding that revocation of the subject orders would have a materially adverse affect on the domestic industry.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(l) — 36 cases
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “at Tab 8.) Additionally, the record shows that there are non-price factors that [¶] ]] questionnaire response indicated were significant in purchasing decisions, such as ability to meet quality and delivery requirements.”
Usinor, Beautor, Haironville, Sollac Atlantique, Sollac Lorraine v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “Second, while the statute gives no guidance as to what the ITC needs to consider to fulfill the “no discernible adverse impact” standard, the Commission argues that 19 U.S.C. § 1675a (a)(7) makes contingent the cumulation prohibition in five year reviews on a determination that…”
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “§ 1675 (c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a), the Court finds that the Commission did not use the proper legal standard with regard to the statutory term “likely.”
Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). The ITC appears to have considered two additional subfac-tors as well, for a total of six subfactors: (5) the extent to which the exporting countries’ SLP production was export-driven; and (6) the international business affiliations of the…”
NSK Corp. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 716 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(l)(A) — 12 cases
Timken Co. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). For purposes of determining whether the likely volume would be significant, the Commission “shall consider all relevant economic factors,” including likely increases in production capacity or current unused capacity in the exporting country, barriers…”
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “§ 1675 (c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a), the Court finds that the Commission did not use the proper legal standard with regard to the statutory term “likely.”
Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “at 16 ; see 19 U.S.C. § 1675a. Plaintiffs contend that because the “likely” standard requires a probability — and not merely a possibility — that volume, price effects, and adverse impact will occur and increase, the evidence must show that it is a “rational economic option” to…”
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(l)(B) — 1 case
Timken Co. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “In pertinent part, the statute reads that: [t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under [19 U.S.C. § 1675a] shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(l)(C) — 2 cases
Nevinnomysskiy Azot v. United States, 565 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).
Consol. Fibers, Inc. v. United States, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(l)(D) — 11 cases
Torrington Co. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 845 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 104 F. Supp. 2d 110 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 715 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
Nsk Ltd. v. United States, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(l)(c) — 1 case
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “at Tab 8.) Additionally, the record shows that there are non-price factors that [¶] ]] questionnaire response indicated were significant in purchasing decisions, such as ability to meet quality and delivery requirements.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(b) — 1 case
AG der Dillinger-Hüttenwerke v. United States, 2004 CIT 9 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(b)(2)(B) — 1 case
AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 2002 CIT 107 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(b)(3) — 3 cases
Neenah Foundry Co. v. United States, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 2002 CIT 107 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(b)(4) — 1 case
AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(b)(4)(A) — 1 case
AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 2002 CIT 107 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(b)(4)(B) — 1 case
AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 2002 CIT 107 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(b)(l) — 1 case
AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 2002 CIT 107 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(b)(l)(B) — 1 case
AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(c) — 3 cases
Techsnabexport v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
Gov't of Uzbekistan v. United States, 2001 CIT 114 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2003 CIT 151 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(c)(1) — 2 cases
Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 121 F. Supp. 2d 684 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
Resolute FP Canada Inc. v. United States, 2024 CIT 95 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(c)(1)(A) — 1 case
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(c)(2) — 2 cases
Resolute FP Canada Inc. v. United States, 2024 CIT 95 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).
Gov't of Uzbekistan v. United States, 2001 CIT 114 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(c)(3) — 5 cases
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Eveready Battery Co., Inc. v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).
Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
Resolute FP Canada Inc. v. United States, 2024 CIT 95 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(c)(l) — 2 cases
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(c)(l)(B) — 2 cases
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(l) — 1 case
Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 2002 CIT 152 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
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.