U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— TARIFF ACT OF 1930 › Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES › Part Part IV— General Provisions

19 U.S.C. § 1677c

Hearings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Investigation hearings(1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), the administering authority and the Commission shall each hold a hearing in the course of an investigation upon the request of any party to the investigation before making a final determination under section 1671d or 1673d of this title.

(2) Exception

If investigations are initiated under part I and part II of this subtitle regarding the same merchandise from the same country within 6 months of each other (but before a final determination is made in either investigation), the holding of a hearing by the Commission in the course of one of the investigations shall be treated as compliance with paragraph (1) for both investigations, unless the Commission considers that special circumstances require that a hearing be held in the course of each of the investigations. During any investigation regarding which the holding of a hearing is waived under this paragraph, the Commission shall allow any party to submit such additional written comment as it considers relevant.

(b) Procedures

Any hearing required or permitted under this subtitle shall be conducted after notice published in the Federal Register, and a transcript of the hearing shall be prepared and made available to the public. The hearing shall not be subject to the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, or to section 702 of such title.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 774, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 186; amended Pub. L. 98–573, title VI, § 616, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3037.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–573 designated existing provisions as par. (1), inserted “Except as provided in paragraph (2),”, and added par. (2).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective 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 30 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Suntec Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Suntec Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “It said just that while also guaranteeing “a hearing in accordance with” 19 U.S.C. § 1677c(b) to any “interested party” requesting one.”
Grupo Indus. Camesa v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 461 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs challenge the vote as contrary to law, claiming that acceptance of the votes of Chairman Newquist and Commissioner Rohr violates 19 U.S.C. § 1677c (1988), which requires the Commission to hold a hearing upon the request of any party to the investigation before making…”
Ipsco, Inc. v. United States, 687 F. Supp. 614 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). · cites it 3× “Congressional exemption of countervailing investigations from APA adjudication requirements is founded upon explicit waivers, 19 U.S.C. § 1677c (1982) (excluding hearings from APA adjudication requirements), 19 and the provision of alternative procedural protections.”
NEC Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Com., 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 933 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). · cites it 4× “The statute requires Commerce to hold a hearing upon the request of any interested party to the investigation prior to its final determination, see 19 U.S.C. § 1677c (1994); 19 C.F.R. § 353.”
Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 595 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “19 U.S.C. §1677c. There is no dispute that Giorgio is an “interested party.”
Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. The United States, 745 F.2d 632 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “19 U.S.C. § 1677c(a). A similar restriction was not placed on the “final determination” in the verification provision.”
AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke v. United States, 2023 CIT 94 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). · cites it 2× “17-00158 Page 13 apply [19 U.S.C. § 1677c] meaningfully in this proceeding.”
Budd Co., Wheel & Brake Div. v. United States, 773 F. Supp. 1549 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991). “19 U.S.C. § 1677c (1988). Nonetheless, Plaintiff failed on three occasions during the two and one-half months of remand proceedings to raise the inflationary adjustment issue.”
Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2014 CIT 12 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). “19 U.S.C. § 1677c(b) (antidumping investigations are not subject to the APA’s notice and comment requirement).”
Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1677c(a)(l) (1988) (emphasis added).”
Guangdong Chemicals Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “19 U.S.C. § 1677c(b) (2000) provides that administrative hearings in antidumping duty reviews are "not subject to the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, or to section 702 of such title" of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA").”
Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “Although Commerce may claim exemption from certain generally applicable administrative laws, 19 U.S.C. § 1677c (exempting "hearings” from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act), there is no indication that Commerce has an exemption from the FOIA requirements that…”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677c(a) — 5 cases
Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. The United States, 745 F.2d 632 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “19 U.S.C. § 1677c(a). A similar restriction was not placed on the “final determination” in the verification provision.”
Grupo Indus. Camesa v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 461 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). “Plaintiffs challenge the vote as contrary to law, claiming that acceptance of the votes of Chairman Newquist and Commissioner Rohr violates 19 U.S.C. § 1677c (1988), which requires the Commission to hold a hearing upon the request of any party to the investigation before making…”
Saarstahl Ag v. United States, 858 F. Supp. 196 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
Intrepid v. Pollock, 15 Ct. Int'l Trade 383 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991).
Saarstahl AG v. United States, 858 F. Supp. 196 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677c(a)(1) — 4 cases
Grupo Indus. Camesa v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 461 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). “Plaintiffs challenge the vote as contrary to law, claiming that acceptance of the votes of Chairman Newquist and Commissioner Rohr violates 19 U.S.C. § 1677c (1988), which requires the Commission to hold a hearing upon the request of any party to the investigation before making…”
M S Int'l, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2022).
M S Int'l, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Catfish Farmers of Am. v. United States, 2025 CIT 152 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677c(a)(l) — 3 cases
Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1677c(a)(l) (1988) (emphasis added).”
NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 757 F. Supp. 1425 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991).
Sundstrand Corp. v. United States, 890 F. Supp. 1100 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677c(b) — 11 cases
Suntec Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “It said just that while also guaranteeing “a hearing in accordance with” 19 U.S.C. § 1677c(b) to any “interested party” requesting one.”
Ipsco, Inc. v. United States, 687 F. Supp. 614 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). “Congressional exemption of countervailing investigations from APA adjudication requirements is founded upon explicit waivers, 19 U.S.C. § 1677c (1982) (excluding hearings from APA adjudication requirements), 19 and the provision of alternative procedural protections.”
Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2014 CIT 12 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). “19 U.S.C. § 1677c(b) (antidumping investigations are not subject to the APA’s notice and comment requirement).”
Guangdong Chemicals Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “19 U.S.C. § 1677c(b) (2000) provides that administrative hearings in antidumping duty reviews are "not subject to the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, or to section 702 of such title" of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA").”
Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 557 F. Supp. 596 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677c(b)(1994) — 2 cases
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).
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.