19 U.S.C. § 1676

Required consultations

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

(a) Agreements in response to countervailable subsidiesWithin 90 days after the administering authority accepts a quantitative restriction agreement under section 1671c(a)(2) or (c)(3) of this title, the President shall enter into consultations with the government that is party to the agreement for purposes of—(1) eliminating the countervailable subsidy completely, or(2) reducing the net countervailable subsidy to a level that eliminates completely the injurious effect of exports to the United States of the merchandise.(b) Modification of agreements on basis of consultations

At the direction of the President, the administering authority shall modify a quantitative restriction agreement as a result of consultations entered into under subsection (a).

This subpart shall cease to apply to a quantitative restriction agreement described in section 1671c(c)(3) of this title at such time as that agreement ceases to have force and effect under section 1671c(f) of this title or violation is found under section 1671c(i) of this title.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 761, as added Pub. L. 98–573, title VI, § 611(a)(4), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3031; amended Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 270(a)(1)(I), (b)(1)(C), (2), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4917.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–465, § 270(b)(1)(C), (2), inserted “countervailable” before “subsidies” in heading.

Subsec. (a)(1), (2). Pub. L. 103–465, § 270(a)(1)(I), inserted “countervailable” before “subsidy”.

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

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1994–2018 · leading case: Glycine & More, Inc. v. United States, 880 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Glycine & More, Inc. v. United States, 880 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Although Congress in the governing legislation required that Commerce engage in such a review if properly requested, Congress did not provide for the situation at hand—how Commerce should proceed if a request, once made, is withdrawn.”

Transcom, Inc., & L & S Bearing Co. v. Unite States, & the Timken Co., 182 F.3d 876 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Trans-com argued that because those exporters were not subject to the reviews, entries from those exporters should be liquidated at the amount of the antidumping duties that were deposited at the time of entry, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1676 (a) and 19 C.F.R. § 353.”

Transcom, Inc. v. United States, 123 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “See generally, 19 U.S.C. § 1676 (a)(1994); 19 C.F.R. §§ 353.”

Mitsubishi Elec. Am., Inc. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 167 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1676 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2); see also Zenith, 1 Fed.”

Thyssenkrupp Steel North Am., Inc. v. United States, 2016 CIT 101 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). · cites it 2× “2004) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1676 (c)(1)(C)). Even though the effective date of the revocation was retroactive, interpreting the term “unliquidat-ed” to mean “not previously-liquidated” ensures that the effect of the sunset review “is entirely prospective,” in that it applies only…”

Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 785 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). “19 U.S.C. § 1676 (a)(2) (1988) states in pertinent part that the ITA’s determination of antidumping duties made during an administrative review “shall be the basis * * * for deposits of estimated duties.”

Parkdale Int'l Ltd. v. United States, 2007 CIT 159 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “This paragraph also applies to subsequent sunset reviews of transition orders (see paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section and [ 19 U.S.C. § 1676 (c)(6)(A)(m)]). (ii) Transition orders.”

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.