19 U.S.C. § 1677a

Export price and constructed export price

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

(a) Export price

The term “export price” means the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).

(b) Constructed export price

The term “constructed export price” means the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d).

(c) Adjustments for export price and constructed export priceThe price used to establish export price and constructed export price shall be—(1) increased by—(A) when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the subject merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States,(B) the amount of any import duties imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States, and(C) the amount of any countervailing duty imposed on the subject merchandise under part I of this subtitle to offset an export subsidy, and(2) reduced by—(A) except as provided in paragraph (1)(C), the amount, if any, included in such price, attributable to any additional costs, charges, or expenses, and United States import duties, which are incident to bringing the subject merchandise from the original place of shipment in the exporting country to the place of delivery in the United States, and(B) the amount, if included in such price, of any export tax, duty, or other charge imposed by the exporting country on the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States, other than an export tax, duty, or other charge described in section 1677(6)(C) of this title.(d) Additional adjustments to constructed export priceFor purposes of this section, the price used to establish constructed export price shall also be reduced by—(1) the amount of any of the following expenses generally incurred by or for the account of the producer or exporter, or the affiliated seller in the United States, in selling the subject merchandise (or subject merchandise to which value has been added)—(A) commissions for selling the subject merchandise in the United States;(B) expenses that result from, and bear a direct relationship to, the sale, such as credit expenses, guarantees and warranties;(C) any selling expenses that the seller pays on behalf of the purchaser; and(D) any selling expenses not deducted under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C);(2) the cost of any further manufacture or assembly (including additional material and labor), except in circumstances described in subsection (e); and(3) the profit allocated to the expenses described in paragraphs (1) and (2).(e) Special rule for merchandise with value added after importationWhere the subject merchandise is imported by a person affiliated with the exporter or producer, and the value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, the administering authority shall determine the constructed export price for such merchandise by using one of the following prices if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and the administering authority determines that the use of such sales is appropriate:(1) The price of identical subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person.(2) The price of other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person.If there is not a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison under paragraph (1) or (2), or the administering authority determines that neither of the prices described in such paragraphs is appropriate, then the constructed export price may be determined on any other reasonable basis.(f) Special rule for determining profit(1) In general

For purposes of subsection (d)(3), profit shall be an amount determined by multiplying the total actual profit by the applicable percentage.

(2) DefinitionsFor purposes of this subsection:(A) Applicable percentage

The term “applicable percentage” means the percentage determined by dividing the total United States expenses by the total expenses.

(B) Total United States expenses

The term “total United States expenses” means the total expenses described in subsection (d)(1) and (2).

(C) Total expensesThe term “total expenses” means all expenses in the first of the following categories which applies and which are incurred by or on behalf of the foreign producer and foreign exporter of the subject merchandise and by or on behalf of the United States seller affiliated with the producer or exporter with respect to the production and sale of such merchandise:(i) The expenses incurred with respect to the subject merchandise sold in the United States and the foreign like product sold in the exporting country if such expenses were requested by the administering authority for the purpose of establishing normal value and constructed export price.(ii) The expenses incurred with respect to the narrowest category of merchandise sold in the United States and the exporting country which includes the subject merchandise.(iii) The expenses incurred with respect to the narrowest category of merchandise sold in all countries which includes the subject merchandise.(D) Total actual profit

The term “total actual profit” means the total profit earned by the foreign producer, exporter, and affiliated parties described in subparagraph (C) with respect to the sale of the same merchandise for which total expenses are determined under such subparagraph.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 772, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 181; amended Pub. L. 98–573, title VI, § 614, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3036; Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 223, Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4876.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–465 amended section generally, substituting present provisions for provisions defining “United States price”, “purchase price”, and “exporter’s sales price” and providing for adjustments to purchase price and exporter’s sales price.

1984—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–573 inserted “a reseller or” before “the manufacturer”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–465 effective, except as otherwise provided, on the date on which the WTO Agreement enters into force with respect to the United States (Jan. 1, 1995), and applicable with respect to investigations, reviews, and inquiries initiated and petitions filed under specified provisions of this chapter after such date, see section 291 of Pub. L. 103–465, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–573 effective Oct. 30, 1984, see section 626(a) of Pub. L. 98–573, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 635 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). · cites it 46× “” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a (d)(1) and (d)(1)(D). In the Final Results , Commerce determined that [a]s [Commerce] stated in [Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof Finished and Unfinished, From Japan,…”

Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 32× “Section 772 of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1677a, determines export price ("EP") and constructed export price ("CEP") by making various adjustments to "[t]he price used to establish export price and constructed export price," 19 U.”

NSK Ltd. v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). · cites it 39× “In determining the CEP level of trade, Commerce begins with the starting price to the first unaffiliated purchaser and then deducts from it the expenses incurred between importation and resale, that is, the expenses provided for in subsection (d) of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. 10 *1328…”

Torrington Co. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 845 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). · cites it 31× “Pursuant to this methodology, Commerce determined the CEP level of trade for NTN’s CEP transactions by using the starting price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, adjusted for the expenses and profit provided in subsection (d) of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a.…”

Rhp Bearings Ltd., Nsk Bearings Eur. Ltd., & Nsk Corp. v. United States, & the Torrington Co., 288 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 21× “The Court of International Trade held that, in its determination of the antidump-ing duty to be applied to antifriction bearings imported into the United States by RHP-NSK during the period covered by the Final Results, Commerce had not erred in computing (i) the constructed…”

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 46× “EP and CEP are defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (1994), respectively.”

Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). · cites it 22× “In the LTFV analysis, Commerce must compare prices that are at the same LOT by adjusting normal value accordingly where sales are at different levels of trade. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7). Thus, where Commerce deems sales in the foreign market and sales in the U.”

Ntn Corp. v. United States, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 27× “19 U.S.C. § 1677a(£)(2)(C). B. Contentions of the Parties NTN complains that Commerce should calculate CEP profit on an LOT basis.”

Floral Trade Council v. United States, 41 F. Supp. 2d 319 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). · cites it 25× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. Typically, Commerce uses EP when the foreign exporter sells directly to an unrelated U.”

Nsk Ltd. v. United States, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 30× “Commerce maintains that “[n]either the statute nor the SAA prohibits Commerce from using the more burdensome standard [19 U.S.C. § 1677a](d)(2) methodology as an alternative reasonable method where the agency finds that neither alternative under [§ 1677a](e)(l) or (e)(2) is…”

U.S. Steel Grp. (A Unit of Usx Corp.)& Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, & Ag Der Dillinger Huttenwerke, 225 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 23× “” See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a (1994) (“Act”). The United States Court of International Trade reversed, thus precluding .”

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 495 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 11× “Title 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) defines "Export price” as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in…”

Show all 635 citing cases →

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(C)(2)(A) — 1 case

Kumar Indus. v. United States, 2025 CIT 52 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(C)(l)(B) — 1 case

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) — 199 cases

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

Vicentin S.A.I.C. v. United StatesPublic version posted 07/09/2020., 2020 CIT 91 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. v. United States, 2013 CIT 74 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).

Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a)(1994) — 1 case

Helmerich & Payne, Inc. v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 2d 304 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a)(6) — 2 cases

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a (d)(1) and (d)(1)(D). In the Final Results , Commerce determined that [a]s [Commerce] stated in [Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof Finished and Unfinished, From Japan,…”

Nsk Ltd. v. United States, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “Commerce maintains that “[n]either the statute nor the SAA prohibits Commerce from using the more burdensome standard [19 U.S.C. § 1677a](d)(2) methodology as an alternative reasonable method where the agency finds that neither alternative under [§ 1677a](e)(l) or (e)(2) is…”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a)(b) — 1 case

Florida Citrus Mut. v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(b) — 144 cases

Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). “In the LTFV analysis, Commerce must compare prices that are at the same LOT by adjusting normal value accordingly where sales are at different levels of trade. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7). Thus, where Commerce deems sales in the foreign market and sales in the U.”

Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. v. United States, 2013 CIT 74 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).

Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

ABB Inc. v. United States, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Floral Trade Council v. United States, 41 F. Supp. 2d 319 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. Typically, Commerce uses EP when the foreign exporter sells directly to an unrelated U.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(b)(1994) — 1 case

Helmerich & Payne, Inc. v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 2d 304 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c) — 90 cases

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 104 F. Supp. 2d 110 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “Section 772 of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1677a, determines export price ("EP") and constructed export price ("CEP") by making various adjustments to "[t]he price used to establish export price and constructed export price," 19 U.”

Vicentin S.A.I.C. v. United StatesPublic version posted 07/09/2020., 2020 CIT 91 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

Torrington Co. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 845 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). “Pursuant to this methodology, Commerce determined the CEP level of trade for NTN’s CEP transactions by using the starting price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, adjusted for the expenses and profit provided in subsection (d) of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a.…”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1) — 2 cases

ABB Inc. v. United States, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim, A.S. v. United States, 2020 CIT 10 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(A) — 1 case

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 49 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(B) — 31 cases

Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Pub.) Co. Ltd. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 2017 CIT 45 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A.Ş. v. United States, 2018 CIT 66 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim, A.S. v. United States, 2020 CIT 10 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 2024 CIT 44 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(C) — 18 cases

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy v. United States, 975 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2017 CIT 62 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1329 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 63 F.4th 25 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2024 CIT 118 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(b) — 1 case

Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. v. United States, 2019 CIT 34 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1988) — 1 case

New York Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 190 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(2) — 12 cases

Apex Exports v. United States, 777 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

ABB, Inc. v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 3d 1200 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Ntn Corp. v. United States, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “19 U.S.C. § 1677a(£)(2)(C). B. Contentions of the Parties NTN complains that Commerce should calculate CEP profit on an LOT basis.”

U.S. Steel Grp.-A Unit of USX Corp. v. United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 892 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

Hyundai Elec. & Energy Sys. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2023 CIT 03 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(2)(A) — 67 cases

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 495 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Title 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) defines "Export price” as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in…”

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 63 F.4th 25 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

China Mfrs. All., LLC v. United States, 2019 CIT 7 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

NSK Ltd. v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “In determining the CEP level of trade, Commerce begins with the starting price to the first unaffiliated purchaser and then deducts from it the expenses incurred between importation and resale, that is, the expenses provided for in subsection (d) of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. 10 *1328…”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(2)(B) — 27 cases

China Mfrs. All., LLC v. United States, 2019 CIT 7 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Jacobi Carbons AB & Jacobi Carbons, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 39 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, 2019 CIT 64 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States, 2016 CIT 85 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(B)(2) — 1 case

Jacobi Carbons AB & Jacobi Carbons, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 39 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(I)(B) — 1 case

Rebar Trade Action Coal. v. United States, 2016 CIT 88 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(l) — 3 cases

Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2012 CIT 79 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

Maverick Tube Corp. v. United States, 2016 CIT 46 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(l)(A) — 4 cases

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 104 F. Supp. 2d 110 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

Skf USA Inc. v. United States, 800 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

RHP Bearings Ltd. v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

RHP Bearings Ltd. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(l)(B) — 14 cases

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

Maverick Tube Corp. v. Toscelik Profil Ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., 861 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Pub.) Co. Ltd. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 2d 656 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

Maverick Tube Corp. v. United States, 2015 CIT 107 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(l)(C) — 8 cases

Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 2017 CIT 32 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 645 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

Dupont Teijin Films Usa, Lp v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP v. United States, 2003 CIT 167 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d) — 88 cases

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “EP and CEP are defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (1994), respectively.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1) — 15 cases

Eregli Demir Ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S v. United States, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “EP and CEP are defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (1994), respectively.”

ABB Inc. v. United States, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2017 CIT 62 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Paul Muller Industrie GmbH & Co. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(1994) — 1 case

Floral Trade Council v. United States, 1999 CIT 10 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(A) — 4 cases

Abb, Inc. v. United States, 920 F.3d 811 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

ABB Inc. v. United States, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Nexteel Co. v. United States, 2019 CIT 116 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(B) — 13 cases

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1266 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

Avesta Sheffield, Inc. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1212 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

Far East Mach. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 610 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).

Floral Trade Council v. United States, 41 F. Supp. 2d 319 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. Typically, Commerce uses EP when the foreign exporter sells directly to an unrelated U.”

Stupp Corp. v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(C) — 33 cases

Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1093 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 88 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1266 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

Torrington Co. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 199 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(C)(1988) — 1 case

Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 9 F. Supp. 2d 688 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(D) — 12 cases

Pakfood Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).

Matra Americas, LLC v. United States, 2024 CIT 14 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).

Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. v. United States, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 781 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

SNR Roulements v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1994) — 1 case

Timken Co. v. United States, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(2) — 17 cases

Rhp Bearings Ltd., Nsk Bearings Eur. Ltd., & Nsk Corp. v. United States, & the Torrington Co., 288 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “The Court of International Trade held that, in its determination of the antidump-ing duty to be applied to antifriction bearings imported into the United States by RHP-NSK during the period covered by the Final Results, Commerce had not erred in computing (i) the constructed…”

Timken Co. v. United States, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

U.S. Steel Grp.-A Unit of USX Corp. v. United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 892 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 807 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(2)(A) — 41 cases

Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 88 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

Thai Pineapple Pub. Co. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1312 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

Torrington Co. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 672 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

PQ Corp. v. United States, 652 F. Supp. 724 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987).

Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 862 F. Supp. 384 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(2)(B) — 5 cases

Magnesium Corp. of Am. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, 2019 CIT 64 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Magnesium Corp. of Am. v. United States, 949 F. Supp. 870 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

U.S. Steel Grp. a Unit of USX Corp. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 761 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(3) — 25 cases

Floral Trade Council v. United States, 41 F. Supp. 2d 319 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. Typically, Commerce uses EP when the foreign exporter sells directly to an unrelated U.”

FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG v. United States, 131 F. Supp. 2d 104 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

Abb, Inc. v. United States, 920 F.3d 811 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(i)(C) — 1 case

Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 839 F. Supp. 881 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l) — 41 cases

Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 54 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).

Jinan Yipin Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 526 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

Jtekt Corp. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(1994) — 3 cases

Floral Trade Council v. United States, 41 F. Supp. 2d 319 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. Typically, Commerce uses EP when the foreign exporter sells directly to an unrelated U.”

Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 54 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).

Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. v. United States, 2001 CIT 22 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(A) — 5 cases

Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 54 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).

ABB Inc. v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

U.S. Steel Grp.-A Unit of USX Corp. v. United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 892 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Grp. Corp. v. United States, 2008 CIT 68 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).

Shanghai Eswell Enter. Co. v. United States, 2008 CIT 124 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(A)(1994) — 1 case

U.S. Steel Grp. v. United States, 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 1059 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(B) — 29 cases

Carlisle Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 657 F. Supp. 1287 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987).

Far East Mach. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 699 F. Supp. 309 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).

Torrington Co. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 403 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).

Alhambra Foundry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 685 F. Supp. 1252 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(C) — 45 cases

Zenith Elec. Corp. v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 1382 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).

Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 862 F. Supp. 384 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).

Am. Alloys, Inc. v. United States, 810 F. Supp. 1294 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

Zenith Elec. Corp. v. United States, 755 F. Supp. 397 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).

Indus. Quimica Del Nalon, S.A. v. United States, 729 F. Supp. 103 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(C)(1982) — 1 case

Atl. Steel Co. v. United States, 636 F. Supp. 917 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(D) — 27 cases

Serampore Indus. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States Dep't of Com., 675 F. Supp. 1354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987).

Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States v. Coalition for Fair Atl. Salmon Trade, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, & U.S. Magnesium LLC, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

United States Steel Corp v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(c) — 1 case

Timken Co. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 619 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(í)(C) — 1 case

Zenith Elec. Corp. v. United States, 872 F. Supp. 992 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(dHe) — 1 case

Budd Co., Wheel & Brake Div. v. United States, 773 F. Supp. 1549 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e) — 47 cases

Timken Co. v. United States, 673 F. Supp. 495 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987).

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 2 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(1) — 2 cases

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 2 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 234 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(1)(B) — 1 case

Florida Citrus Mut. v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(1988) — 1 case

Hussey Copper, Ltd. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 993 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(2) — 74 cases

Daewoo Elec. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 931 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).

Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

Timken Co. v. United States, 673 F. Supp. 495 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987).

Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 36 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 726 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(2)(1988) — 2 cases

Timken Co. v. United States, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(2)(A) — 8 cases

Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 807 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, 269 F. Supp. 3d 1335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria & Agricultura v. United States, 2012 CIT 149 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 34 F. Supp. 2d 756 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(3) — 24 cases

Nsk Ltd. & Nsk Corp. v. The United States, & Fed.-Mogul Corp., & the Torrington Co., 115 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

NSK Ltd. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 1013 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).

NSK Ltd. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 617 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).

Nsk Ltd. v. United States, 910 F. Supp. 663 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).

Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(l) — 7 cases

Asociacion Colombiana De Exportadores De Flores v. United States, 6 F. Supp. 2d 865 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

The Timken Co. v. The United States, Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., Koyo Corp. of U.S.A., Inc., Nsk, Ltd. & Nsk Corp., 37 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Timken Co. v. United States, 795 F. Supp. 438 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

Indep. Radionic Workers of Am. v. United States, 862 F. Supp. 422 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(l)(B) — 3 cases

Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Pub.) Co. Ltd. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).

Rajinder Pipes Ltd. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e)(l)(C) — 1 case

Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP v. United States, 2003 CIT 167 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f) — 22 cases

Floral Trade Council v. United States, 41 F. Supp. 2d 319 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. Typically, Commerce uses EP when the foreign exporter sells directly to an unrelated U.”

U.S. Steel Grp. (A Unit of Usx Corp.)& Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, & Ag Der Dillinger Huttenwerke, 225 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “” See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a (1994) (“Act”). The United States Court of International Trade reversed, thus precluding .”

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “EP and CEP are defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (1994), respectively.”

FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG v. United States, 131 F. Supp. 2d 104 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(1) — 2 cases

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “EP and CEP are defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (1994), respectively.”

Thai Pineapple Canning Indus. Corp. v. United States, 2000 CIT 17 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2) — 2 cases

Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Ltd. v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

Ausimont SPA v. United States, 2001 CIT 92 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(A) — 3 cases

SNR Roulements v. United States, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 2023 CIT 183 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(B) — 11 cases

SNR Roulements v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG v. United States, 131 F. Supp. 2d 104 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

Timken Co. v. United States, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Ltd. v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C) — 21 cases

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “EP and CEP are defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (1994), respectively.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(1994) — 1 case

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(i) — 9 cases

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “EP and CEP are defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (1994), respectively.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(ii) — 5 cases

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “EP and CEP are defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (1994), respectively.”

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 295 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(iii) — 3 cases

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “EP and CEP are defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (1994), respectively.”

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 2023 CIT 183 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D) — 13 cases

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “EP and CEP are defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (1994), respectively.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(c) — 1 case

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 616 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(c)(iii) — 1 case

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 616 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(e) — 1 case

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(C) — 2 cases

Timken Co. v. United States, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(l) — 10 cases

Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Ltd. v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

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.