19 U.S.C. § 1677e

Determinations on basis of facts available

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

(a) In generalIf—(1) necessary information is not available on the record, or(2) an interested party or any other person—(A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority or the Commission under this subtitle,(B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 1677m of this title,(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this subtitle, or(D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 1677m(i) of this title,the administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 1677m(d) of this title, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this subtitle.(b) Adverse inferences(1) In generalIf the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be) finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be), in reaching the applicable determination under this subtitle—(A) may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available; and(B) is not required to determine, or make any adjustments to, a countervailable subsidy rate or weighted average dumping margin based on any assumptions about information the interested party would have provided if the interested party had complied with the request for information.(2) Potential sources of information for adverse inferencesAn adverse inference under paragraph (1)(A) may include reliance on information derived from—(A) the petition,(B) a final determination in the investigation under this subtitle,(C) any previous review under section 1675 of this title or determination under section 1675b of this title, or(D) any other information placed on the record.(c) Corroboration of secondary information(1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), when the administering authority or the Commission relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, the administering authority or the Commission, as the case may be, shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at their disposal.

(2) Exception

The administrative authority and the Commission shall not be required to corroborate any dumping margin or countervailing duty applied in a separate segment of the same proceeding.

(d) Subsidy rates and dumping margins in adverse inference determinations(1) In generalIf the administering authority uses an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party under subsection (b)(1)(A) in selecting among the facts otherwise available, the administering authority may—(A) in the case of a countervailing duty proceeding—(i) use a countervailable subsidy rate applied for the same or similar program in a countervailing duty proceeding involving the same country; or(ii) if there is no same or similar program, use a countervailable subsidy rate for a subsidy program from a proceeding that the administering authority considers reasonable to use; and(B) in the case of an antidumping duty proceeding, use any dumping margin from any segment of the proceeding under the applicable antidumping order.(2) Discretion to apply highest rate

In carrying out paragraph (1), the administering authority may apply any of the countervailable subsidy rates or dumping margins specified under that paragraph, including the highest such rate or margin, based on the evaluation by the administering authority of the situation that resulted in the administering authority using an adverse inference in selecting among the facts otherwise available.

(3) No obligation to make certain estimates or address certain claimsIf the administering authority uses an adverse inference under subsection (b)(1)(A) in selecting among the facts otherwise available, the administering authority is not required, for purposes of subsection (c) or for any other purpose—(A) to estimate what the countervailable subsidy rate or dumping margin would have been if the interested party found to have failed to cooperate under subsection (b)(1) had cooperated; or(B) to demonstrate that the countervailable subsidy rate or dumping margin used by the administering authority reflects an alleged commercial reality of the interested party.(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 776, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 186; amended Pub. L. 98–573, title VI, § 618, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3037; Pub. L. 100–418, title I, §§ 1326(d)(1), 1331, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1204, 1207; Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 231(c), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4896; Pub. L. 114–27, title V, § 502, June 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 383.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2015—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–27, § 502(1), inserted par. (1) designation and heading before “If the administering”, substituted “under this subtitle—” for “under this subtitle, may use”, inserted “(A) may use” before “an inference that is adverse”, substituted “facts otherwise available; and” for “facts otherwise available. Such adverse inference may include”, added subpar. (B), inserted par. (2) designation, heading, and “An adverse inference under paragraph (1)(A) may include” before “reliance on information”, and redesignated former pars. (1) to (4) as subpars. (A) to (D), respectively, of par. (2) and realigned margins.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–27, § 502(2), designated existing provisions as par. (1) and inserted heading, substituted “Except as provided in paragraph (2), when the” for “When the”, and added par. (2).

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 114–27, § 502(3), added subsec. (d).

1994—Pub. L. 103–465 amended section generally, substituting present provisions for provisions relating to verification of information, certification of submissions, and determinations required to be made on best information available.

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1331(1), (3), added subsec. (a). Former subsec. (a) redesignated (b).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1331(1), (2), redesignated former subsec. (a) as (b) and in heading substituted “Verification” for “General rule”.

Subsec. (b)(3)(A). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1326(d)(1), which directed the amendment of this subtitle by substituting “subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of section 1677(9) of this title” for “subparagraph (C), (D), (E), or (F), of section 1677(9) of this title” was executed to subsec. (b)(3)(A) of this section by substituting “section 1677(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of this title” for “section 1677(9)(C), (D), (E), or (F) of this title” to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1331(1), redesignated former subsec. (b) as (c).

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–573 amended subsec. (a) generally, which prior to amendment read as follows: “Except with respect to information the verification of which is waived under section 1673b(b)(2) of this title, the administering authority shall verify all information relied upon in making a final determination in an investigation. In publishing such a determination, the administering authority shall report the methods and procedures used to verify such information. If the administering authority is unable to verify the accuracy of the information submitted, it shall use the best information available to it as the basis for its determination, which may include the information submitted in support of the petition.”

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 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–418 applicable with respect to investigations initiated after Aug. 23, 1988, and to reviews initiated under section 1673e(c) or 1675 of this title after Aug. 23, 1988, see section 1337(b) of Pub. L. 100–418, 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 883 cases (112 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 26× “19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2). If Commerce finds that a respondent has “failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the statute permits the agency to draw adverse inferences commonly known as “adverse facts available” when…”

Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). · cites it 34× “19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (emphasis added). Subsection 1677e(a) has several layers and multi- ple uses of the disjunctive.”

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). · cites it 37× “Because these findings were required for the application of the “facts otherwise available” and “adverse inferences” provisions set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1677e, the challenged decision exceeded the authority granted by Congress in those provisions.”

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). · cites it 39× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

Posco v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 28× “Corroboration Methodology POSCO identifies the following language in the Issues and Decision Memorandum as evidence of Commerce's misinterpretation of its statutory obligation to corroborate secondary information: However[,] [ 19 U.S.C. § 1677e ](c)(1) does not require…”

Shandong Huarong Mach. Co. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 24× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (a); see also Shandong Huarong Gen.”

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). · cites it 36× “tment’s final results in the third administrative review of an antidumping duty order applying to imports of certain preserved mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China (“China” or the “PRC”) were not supported by substantial evidence, and were otherwise not in accordance…”

China Kingdom Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). · cites it 38× “For the reasons discussed below, the court concludes with respect to China Kingdom that Commerce did not act in accordance with law when invoking facts otherwise available under subsection (a) of 19 U.S.C. § 1677e and when using adverse inferences under subsection (b) of that…”

Ferro Union, Inc. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). · cites it 25× “19 U.S.C. § 1677e (1994). As this court clarified in Borden, Inc.”

Skf USA Inc. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 23× “15% rate, Commerce, invoking facts otherwise available and an adverse inference pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (2006), applied a rate of 17.”

Nat'l Nail Corp. v. United States, 390 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019). · cites it 23× “3d at 1381 (emphasis added) (construing 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (2000) 31 ); see also F.”

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). · cites it 20× “” Final Decision Memo at 17; see 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. Trina Solar argues that Commerce’s inquiry regarding any forms of governmental assistance beyond those that were specifically alleged in the petition was contrary to law, Trina Solar’s Br.”

Show all 883 citing cases →

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) — 368 cases

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “Because these findings were required for the application of the “facts otherwise available” and “adverse inferences” provisions set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1677e, the challenged decision exceeded the authority granted by Congress in those provisions.”

Shandong Huarong Mach. Co. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (a); see also Shandong Huarong Gen.”

Ningbo Dafa Chem. Fiber Co., Ltd. v. United States, 580 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (emphasis added). Subsection 1677e(a) has several layers and multi- ple uses of the disjunctive.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(1) — 52 cases

Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (emphasis added). Subsection 1677e(a) has several layers and multi- ple uses of the disjunctive.”

Clearon Corp. v. United States, 2019 CIT 13 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Nat'l Nail Corp. v. United States, 390 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019). “3d at 1381 (emphasis added) (construing 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (2000) 31 ); see also F.”

Meihua Grp. Int'l Trading (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. United States, 2023 CIT 53 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).

Nexteel Co. v. United States, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1276 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(1988) — 1 case

Ferro Union, Inc. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e (1994). As this court clarified in Borden, Inc.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(1999) — 1 case

Citic Trading Co. v. United States, 2003 CIT 23 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2) — 72 cases

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2). If Commerce finds that a respondent has “failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the statute permits the agency to draw adverse inferences commonly known as “adverse facts available” when…”

Universal Polybag Co., Ltd. v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).

Fujian Mach. & Equip. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 178 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(2015) — 1 case

Posco v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “Corroboration Methodology POSCO identifies the following language in the Issues and Decision Memorandum as evidence of Commerce's misinterpretation of its statutory obligation to corroborate secondary information: However[,] [ 19 U.S.C. § 1677e ](c)(1) does not require…”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(A) — 73 cases

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

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

Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

China Kingdom Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “For the reasons discussed below, the court concludes with respect to China Kingdom that Commerce did not act in accordance with law when invoking facts otherwise available under subsection (a) of 19 U.S.C. § 1677e and when using adverse inferences under subsection (b) of that…”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(B) — 43 cases

Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (emphasis added). Subsection 1677e(a) has several layers and multi- ple uses of the disjunctive.”

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 835 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

Reiner Brach GmbH & Co. KG v. United States, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(C) — 25 cases

Ferro Union, Inc. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e (1994). As this court clarified in Borden, Inc.”

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (emphasis added). Subsection 1677e(a) has several layers and multi- ple uses of the disjunctive.”

Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. v. United States, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(D) — 41 cases

Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (emphasis added). Subsection 1677e(a) has several layers and multi- ple uses of the disjunctive.”

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

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). “” Final Decision Memo at 17; see 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. Trina Solar argues that Commerce’s inquiry regarding any forms of governmental assistance beyond those that were specifically alleged in the petition was contrary to law, Trina Solar’s Br.”

Gov't of Quebec v. United States, 105 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024).

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(d) — 1 case

Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(Á) — 1 case

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. Ltd. v. United States, 2017 CIT 106 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(3) — 2 cases

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

A. Giacomini, S.p.A. v. United States, 15 Ct. Int'l Trade 91 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(4) — 1 case

Shandong Huarong Gen. Grp. Corp. v. United States, 2003 CIT 135 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(A) — 2 cases

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

Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 25 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(B) — 1 case

Universal Polybag Co., Ltd. v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(C) — 2 cases

Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. v. United States, 2010 CIT 108 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).

Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2007 CIT 131 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(D) — 1 case

Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2007 CIT 131 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(l) — 28 cases

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd v. United States, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

Qingdao Taifa Grp. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2012 CIT 7 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

Nsk Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(l)(D) — 1 case

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 872 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) — 491 cases

Skf USA Inc. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “15% rate, Commerce, invoking facts otherwise available and an adverse inference pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (2006), applied a rate of 17.”

Shandong Huarong Mach. Co. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (a); see also Shandong Huarong Gen.”

Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(1) — 40 cases

Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (emphasis added). Subsection 1677e(a) has several layers and multi- ple uses of the disjunctive.”

SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 67 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Papierfabrik August Koehler Se v. United States, 843 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 169 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

BMW of N. Am. LLC v. United States, 926 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(1)(2015) — 2 cases

Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal v. United States, 361 F. Supp. 3d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(1)(2016) — 2 cases

Hyundai Heavy Indus., Co. v. United States, 332 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(1)(A) — 29 cases

Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (emphasis added). Subsection 1677e(a) has several layers and multi- ple uses of the disjunctive.”

Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, 2018 CIT 150 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Nat'l Nail Corp. v. United States, 390 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019). “3d at 1381 (emphasis added) (construing 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (2000) 31 ); see also F.”

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(1)(B) — 2 cases

Arcelormittal U.S. LLC v. United States, 2018 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(1994) — 2 cases

Ferro Union, Inc. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e (1994). As this court clarified in Borden, Inc.”

Steel Auth. of India, Ltd. v. United States, 149 F. Supp. 2d 921 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(1999) — 1 case

Citic Trading Co. v. United States, 2003 CIT 23 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(2) — 34 cases

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

Nexteel Co. v. United States, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1276 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Chia Far Indus. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(2)(A) — 10 cases

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

Clearon Corp. v. United States, 2019 CIT 13 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Papierfabrik August Koehler AG v. United States, 2016 CIT 67 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, 2020 CIT 45 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(2)(D) — 3 cases

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(2006) — 1 case

Since Hardware Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2011 CIT 146 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(2012) — 4 cases

Hyundai Heavy Indus., Co. v. United States, 332 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal v. United States, 361 F. Supp. 3d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(3) — 10 cases

Essar Steel Ltd. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Timken Co. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 486 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).

Neenah Foundry Co. v. United States, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 771 F. Supp. 389 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991).

Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(3)(B) — 6 cases

Torrington Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

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

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

Torrington Co. v. United States, 832 F. Supp. 379 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

Torrington Co. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 951 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(4) — 5 cases

Nsk Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

Branco Peres Citrus, S.A. v. United States, 173 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

Hebei Jiheng Chem. Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 14 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. United States, 2002 CIT 77 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(9) — 1 case

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(ii) — 1 case

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(l) — 19 cases

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 866 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Papierfabrik August Koehler Se v. United States, 843 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 806 F. Supp. 1008 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(l)(A) — 2 cases

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(l)(B) — 1 case

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(lM4) — 1 case

SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 2016 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c) — 265 cases

Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Nsk Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 2013 CIT 93 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).

Rhone Poulenc, Inc. & Rhone Poulenc Chimie De Base, S.A. v. The United States, Pq Corp., 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c)(1) — 16 cases

Clearon Corp. v. United States, 2019 CIT 13 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 169 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Deacero S.A.P.I. De C v. v. United States, 2018 CIT 155 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c)(1988) — 5 cases

Cultivos Miramonte S.A. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1059 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).

Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 573 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

Asociacion Colombiana De Exportadores De Flores v. United States, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

Floral Trade Council of Davis v. United States, 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 1014 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 631 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c)(2) — 8 cases

Clearon Corp. v. United States, 2019 CIT 13 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

Thuan an Prod. Trading & Serv. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 152 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Pro-Team Coil Nail Enter., Inc. v. United States, 2020 CIT 163 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2016 CIT 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c)(2)(B) — 1 case

Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c)(l) — 1 case

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d) — 11 cases

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 166 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, 2020 CIT 45 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 169 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(1) — 7 cases

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 166 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, 2020 CIT 45 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

POSCO v. United States, 2019 CIT 52 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

POSCO v. United States, 2019 CIT 138 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(1)(A) — 12 cases

Clearon Corp. v. United States, 2019 CIT 13 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar v. United States, 992 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 115 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(1)(A)(i) — 6 cases

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 166 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Clearon Corp. v. United States, 2019 CIT 13 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 169 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 2016 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, 2020 CIT 45 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(1)(B) — 3 cases

Zhejiang Zhaofeng Mech. & Elec. Co. v. United States, 2019 CIT 167 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, 2023 CIT 60 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).

Chandan Steel Ltd. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2026).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(2) — 20 cases

POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 169 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

BMW of N. Am. LLC v. United States, 926 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(3) — 9 cases

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar v. United States, 992 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Arcelormittal U.S. LLC v. United States, 2018 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Bosun Tools Co. v. United States, 2020 CIT 97 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(3)(A) — 1 case

Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. United States, 2025 CIT 115 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(3)(B) — 5 cases

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

Deosen Biochemical Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 33 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Deosen Biochemical Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 32 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Deacero S.A.P.I. De C v. v. United States, 2019 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Hubbell Power Sys., Inc. v. United States, 2019 CIT 145 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(3)(B)(2015) — 1 case

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(l)(2) — 1 case

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(l)(A) — 1 case

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(l)(A)(i) — 2 cases

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (addressing both FA and AFA).”

SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 2016 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(e) — 24 cases

Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Pam, S.P.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Shanghai Taoen Intern. Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).

Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(e)(1994) — 1 case

Ferro Union, Inc. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “19 U.S.C. § 1677e (1994). As this court clarified in Borden, Inc.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(l) — 1 case

Thai Plastic Bags Indus. Co. v. United States, 746 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(l)(2)(B) — 1 case

Ocean Harvest Wholesale, Inc. v. United States, 2002 CIT 29 (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.