19 U.S.C. § 1677j

Prevention of circumvention of antidumping and countervailing duty orders

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

(a) Merchandise completed or assembled in United States(1) In generalIf—(A) merchandise sold in the United States is of the same class or kind as any other merchandise that is the subject of—(i) an antidumping duty order issued under section 1673e of this title,(ii) a finding issued under the Antidumping Act, 1921, or(iii) a countervailing duty order issued under section 1671e of this title or section 1303 11 See References in Text note below. of this title,(B) such merchandise sold in the United States is completed or assembled in the United States from parts or components produced in the foreign country with respect to which such order or finding applies,(C) the process of assembly or completion in the United States is minor or insignificant, and(D) the value of the parts or components referred to in subparagraph (B) is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise,the administering authority, after taking into account any advice provided by the Commission under subsection (e), may include within the scope of such order or finding the imported parts or components referred to in subparagraph (B) that are used in the completion or assembly of the merchandise in the United States at any time such order or finding is in effect.(2) Determination of whether process is minor or insignificantIn determining whether the process of assembly or completion is minor or insignificant under paragraph (1)(C), the administering authority shall take into account—(A) the level of investment in the United States,(B) the level of research and development in the United States,(C) the nature of the production process in the United States,(D) the extent of production facilities in the United States, and(E) whether the value of the processing performed in the United States represents a small proportion of the value of the merchandise sold in the United States.(3) Factors to considerIn determining whether to include parts or components in a countervailing or antidumping duty order or finding under paragraph (1), the administering authority shall take into account such factors as—(A) the pattern of trade, including sourcing patterns,(B) whether the manufacturer or exporter of the parts or components is affiliated with the person who assembles or completes the merchandise sold in the United States from the parts or components produced in the foreign country with respect to which the order or finding described in paragraph (1) applies, and(C) whether imports into the United States of the parts or components produced in such foreign country have increased after the initiation of the investigation which resulted in the issuance of such order or finding.(b) Merchandise completed or assembled in other foreign countries(1) In generalIf—(A) merchandise imported into the United States is of the same class or kind as any merchandise produced in a foreign country that is the subject of—(i) an antidumping duty order issued under section 1673e of this title,(ii) a finding issued under the Antidumping Act, 1921, or(iii) a countervailing duty order issued under section 1671e of this title or section 1303 ¹ of this title,(B) before importation into the United States, such imported merchandise is completed or assembled in another foreign country from merchandise which—(i) is subject to such order or finding, or(ii) is produced in the foreign country with respect to which such order or finding applies,(C) the process of assembly or completion in the foreign country referred to in subparagraph (B) is minor or insignificant,(D) the value of the merchandise produced in the foreign country to which the antidumping duty order applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States, and(E) the administering authority determines that action is appropriate under this paragraph to prevent evasion of such order or finding,the administering authority, after taking into account any advice provided by the Commission under subsection (e), may include such imported merchandise within the scope of such order or finding at any time such order or finding is in effect.(2) Determination of whether process is minor or insignificantIn determining whether the process of assembly or completion is minor or insignificant under paragraph (1)(C), the administering authority shall take into account—(A) the level of investment in the foreign country,(B) the level of research and development in the foreign country,(C) the nature of the production process in the foreign country,(D) the extent of production facilities in the foreign country, and(E) whether the value of the processing performed in the foreign country represents a small proportion of the value of the merchandise imported into the United States.(3) Factors to considerIn determining whether to include merchandise assembled or completed in a foreign country in a countervailing duty order or an antidumping duty order or finding under paragraph (1), the administering authority shall take into account such factors as—(A) the pattern of trade, including sourcing patterns,(B) whether the manufacturer or exporter of the merchandise described in paragraph (1)(B) is affiliated with the person who uses the merchandise described in paragraph (1)(B) to assemble or complete in the foreign country the merchandise that is subsequently imported into the United States, and(C) whether imports into the foreign country of the merchandise described in paragraph (1)(B) have increased after the initiation of the investigation which resulted in the issuance of such order or finding.(c) Minor alterations of merchandise(1) In generalThe class or kind of merchandise subject to—(A) an investigation under this subtitle,(B) an antidumping duty order issued under section 1673e of this title,(C) a finding issued under the Antidumping Act, 1921, or(D) a countervailing duty order issued under section 1671e of this title or section 1303 ¹ of this title,shall include articles altered in form or appearance in minor respects (including raw agricultural products that have undergone minor processing), whether or not included in the same tariff classification.(2) Exception

Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to altered merchandise if the administering authority determines that it would be unnecessary to consider the altered merchandise within the scope of the investigation, order, or finding.

(d) Later-developed merchandise(1) In generalFor purposes of determining whether merchandise developed after an investigation is initiated under this subtitle or section 1303 ¹ of this title (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the “later-developed merchandise”) is within the scope of an outstanding antidumping or countervailing duty order issued under this subtitle or section 1303 ¹ of this title as a result of such investigation, the administering authority shall consider whether—(A) the later-developed merchandise has the same general physical characteristics as the merchandise with respect to which the order was originally issued (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the “earlier product”),(B) the expectations of the ultimate purchasers of the later-developed merchandise are the same as for the earlier product,(C) the ultimate use of the earlier product and the later-developed merchandise are the same,(D) the later-developed merchandise is sold through the same channels of trade as the earlier product, and(E) the later-developed merchandise is advertised and displayed in a manner similar to the earlier product.The administering authority shall take into account any advice provided by the Commission under subsection (e) before making a determination under this subparagraph.(2) Exclusion from ordersThe administering authority may not exclude a later-developed merchandise from a countervailing or antidumping duty order merely because the merchandise—(A) is classified under a tariff classification other than that identified in the petition or the administering authority’s prior notices during the proceeding, or(B) permits the purchaser to perform additional functions, unless such additional functions constitute the primary use of the merchandise and the cost of the additional functions constitute more than a significant proportion of the total cost of production of the merchandise.(e) Commission advice(1) Notification to Commission of proposed actionBefore making a determination—(A) under subsection (a) with respect to merchandise completed or assembled in the United States (other than minor completion or assembly),(B) under subsection (b) with respect to merchandise completed or assembled in other foreign countries, or(C) under subsection (d) with respect to any later-developed merchandise which incorporates a significant technological advance or significant alteration of an earlier product,with respect to an antidumping or countervailing duty order or finding as to which the Commission has made an affirmative injury determination, the administering authority shall notify the Commission of the proposed inclusion of such merchandise in such countervailing or antidumping order or finding. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a decision by the administering authority regarding whether any merchandise is within a category for which notice is required under this paragraph is not subject to judicial review.(2) Request for consultation

After receiving notice under paragraph (1), the Commission may request consultations with the administering authority regarding the inclusion. Upon the request of the Commission, the administering authority shall consult with the Commission and any such consultation shall be completed within 15 days after the date of the request.

(3) Commission advice

If the Commission believes, after consultation under paragraph (2), that a significant injury issue is presented by the proposed inclusion, the Commission may provide written advice to the administering authority as to whether the inclusion would be inconsistent with the affirmative determination of the Commission on which the order or finding is based. If the Commission decides to provide such written advice, it shall promptly notify the administering authority of its intention to do so, and must provide such advice within 60 days after the date of notification under paragraph (1). For purposes of formulating its advice with respect to merchandise completed or assembled in the United States from parts or components produced in a foreign country, the Commission shall consider whether the inclusion of such parts or components taken as a whole would be inconsistent with its prior affirmative determination.

(f) Time limits for administering authority determinations

The administering authority shall, to the maximum extent practicable, make the determinations under this section within 300 days from the date of the initiation of a countervailing duty or antidumping circumvention inquiry under this section.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 781, as added Pub. L. 100–418, title I, § 1321(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1192; amended Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 230, Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4891.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Antidumping Act, 1921, referred to in subsecs. (a)(1)(A)(ii), (b)(1)(A)(ii), and (c)(1)(C), is act May 27, 1921, ch. 14, title II, 42 Stat. 11, which was classified generally to sections 160 to 171 of this title, and was repealed by Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 106(a), July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 193.

Section 1303 of this title, referred to in subsecs. (a)(1)(A)(iii), (b)(1)(A)(iii), (c)(1)(D), and (d)(1), is defined in section 1677(26) of this title to mean section 1330 as in effect on the day before Jan. 1, 1995.

Amendments

1994—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 103–465, § 230(a), amended subsecs. (a) and (b) generally, to include provisions relating to whether process of assembly or completion of merchandise in United States or foreign countries is minor or insignificant.

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 103–465, § 230(b), added subsec. (f).

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 articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after Aug. 23, 1988, see section 1337(d) of Pub. L. 100–418, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 1671 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 100 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 2014 CIT 62 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 2014 CIT 62 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). · cites it 24× “The general rule that Commerce may construe but not modify the scope of an existing order is subject to a statutory exception, for in certain specified situations, Commerce may enlarge the scope of an order by invoking the “prevention of circumvention” provisions contained in…”

Bell Supply Co. v. United States, 83 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). · cites it 23× “2 on the grounds that the Final Scope Ruling-unlawfully expanded the scope of the Orders and unlawfully ignored the statutory circumvention criteria in 19 U.S.C. § 1677j for when Commerce may include merchandise finished in a third country within the scope of an order.”

U.K. Carbon & Graphite Co. v. United States, 2013 CIT 114 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013). · cites it 27× “In a circumvention inquiry, Commerce analyzes whether a product outside an order’s literal scope should nevertheless be included within the scope to prevent circumvention of antidumping and countervailing duty orders pursuant to statutory criteria set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1677j…”

Ceramark Tech., Inc. v. United States, 2014 CIT 114 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). · cites it 11× “100-71, at 101 (1987) (legislative history of 19 U.S.C. § 1677j), Commerce may determine that a product in the penumbra of an order, outside the literal scope of its language, is covered by that order.”

Ausimont USA, Inc. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 151 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). · cites it 33× “Thus, the ITA argues that Congress recognizes what Au-simont does not: Commerce must be accorded substantial deference in determining whether the value added to imported “parts or components” in the United States is small within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1677j (a)(1)(C) because…”

Al Ghurair Iron & Steel LLC v. United States, 65 F.4th 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2023). · cites it 4× “19 U.S.C. § 1677j allows Commerce to initiate investigations and make determina- tions that prevent companies from circumventing AD and CVD orders, such as by transshipping the goods subject to duties through another country.”

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 808 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). · cites it 9× “19 U.S.C. § 1677j (c)(2). As Commerce has made a final determination that the alleged “altered merchandise,” namely line and dual-certified pipe, is clearly excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty orders in effect on standard pipe, section 781(c)(1) “shall not apply,” as…”

Macao Com. & Indus. Spring Mattress Mfr. v. United States, 2020 CIT 37 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). · cites it 10× “Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b), in order to prevent circumvention of an antidumping duty order, Commerce is empowered to find certain merchandise to be within the scope of the order if “before importation into the United States, such imported merchandise is completed or…”

Nippon Steel Corp., Nkk Corp., Kawasaki Steel Corp. & Sumitomo Metal Indus., Ltd. v. United States, & Uss-Posco Indus., 219 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 5× “This government appeal challenges a preliminary injunction of the Court of International Trade prohibiting the Department of Commerce from continuing its administrative proceeding under 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(c) and 19 C.F.R. § 351 .”

Bell Supply Co., LLC v. United States, 888 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “The Trade Court also affirmed Commerce's determination that OCTG finished in third countries do not meet the requirements for circumvention under 19 U.S.C. § 1677j. Because we conclude that the Trade Court improperly proscribed Commerce from using the substantial *1225…”

Target Corp. v. United States, 578 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). · cites it 13× “A later-developed merchandise anticircumvention inquiry is a specific type of scope inquiry governed by its own statutory provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(d), which codified Commerce’s administrative practice for analyzing whether later-developed merchandise fell within the scope of…”

Bell Supply Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 109 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). · cites it 21× “Finally, in making a determination whether to include merchandise assembled or completed in a third country within an order, Commerce considers the additional factors listed under 19 U.S.C. § 1677j (b)(3), which are (A) the pattern of trade, including sourcing patterns, (B)…”

Show all 100 citing cases →

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(a) — 14 cases

Ams Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 737 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Deacero S.A. De C v. v. United States, 817 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Target Corp. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Ausimont USA, Inc. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 151 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). “Thus, the ITA argues that Congress recognizes what Au-simont does not: Commerce must be accorded substantial deference in determining whether the value added to imported “parts or components” in the United States is small within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1677j (a)(1)(C) because…”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(a)(1) — 1 case

BYD (H.K.) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 60 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(a)(1)(A) — 1 case

Am. Pac. Plywood, Inc. v. United States, 2025 CIT 87 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(a)(1)(C) — 1 case

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(a)(2) — 2 cases

Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 455 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(a)(B) — 1 case

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(a)(C) — 1 case

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(a)(l) — 3 cases

Brother Indus. (USA), Inc. v. United States, 801 F. Supp. 751 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 811 F. Supp. 692 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

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

Bell Supply Co. v. United States, 83 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). “2 on the grounds that the Final Scope Ruling-unlawfully expanded the scope of the Orders and unlawfully ignored the statutory circumvention criteria in 19 U.S.C. § 1677j for when Commerce may include merchandise finished in a third country within the scope of an order.”

Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 811 F. Supp. 692 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(a)(l)(C) — 2 cases

Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 898 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b) — 27 cases

Bell Supply Co. v. United States, 179 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 2014 CIT 62 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). “The general rule that Commerce may construe but not modify the scope of an existing order is subject to a statutory exception, for in certain specified situations, Commerce may enlarge the scope of an order by invoking the “prevention of circumvention” provisions contained in…”

Kyocera Solar, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 90 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 2012 CIT 159 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(1) — 5 cases

Bell Supply Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 109 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). “Finally, in making a determination whether to include merchandise assembled or completed in a third country within an order, Commerce considers the additional factors listed under 19 U.S.C. § 1677j (b)(3), which are (A) the pattern of trade, including sourcing patterns, (B)…”

BYD (H.K.) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 60 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

Trina Solar (Viet.) Sci. & Tech. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 62 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

Am. Pac. Plywood, Inc. v. United States, 2025 CIT 87 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

Tanghenam Elec. Wire & Cable Co. v. United States, 2026 CIT 21 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2026).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(1)(A) — 4 cases

Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 59 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

BYD (H.K.) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 60 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

Pitts Enters., Inc. v. United States, 2025 CIT 133 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

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

Macao Com. & Indus. Spring Mattress Mfr. v. United States, 2020 CIT 37 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b), in order to prevent circumvention of an antidumping duty order, Commerce is empowered to find certain merchandise to be within the scope of the order if “before importation into the United States, such imported merchandise is completed or…”

HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, 2024 CIT 06 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(1)(C) — 8 cases

Al Ghurair Iron & Steel LLC v. United States, 65 F.4th 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2023). “19 U.S.C. § 1677j allows Commerce to initiate investigations and make determina- tions that prevent companies from circumventing AD and CVD orders, such as by transshipping the goods subject to duties through another country.”

BYD (H.K.) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 60 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, 2024 CIT 06 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).

Trina Solar (Viet.) Sci. & Tech. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 62 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(1)(D) — 3 cases

BYD (H.K.) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 60 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

Tanghenam Elec. Wire & Cable Co. v. United States, 2026 CIT 21 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2026).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(1)(E) — 4 cases

BYD (H.K.) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 60 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 59 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, 2024 CIT 06 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).

SeAH Steel VINA Corp. v. United States, 2025 CIT 157 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(2) — 11 cases

U.K. Carbon & Graphite Co. v. United States, 2013 CIT 114 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013). “In a circumvention inquiry, Commerce analyzes whether a product outside an order’s literal scope should nevertheless be included within the scope to prevent circumvention of antidumping and countervailing duty orders pursuant to statutory criteria set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1677j…”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(2)(A) — 4 cases

Trina Solar (Viet.) Sci. & Tech. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 62 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

Hanon Sys. Alabama Corp. v. United States, 2025 CIT 94 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(2)(C) — 4 cases

Hanon Sys. Alabama Corp. v. United States, 2025 CIT 94 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, 2024 CIT 06 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).

Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 59 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

SeAH Steel VINA Corp. v. United States, 2025 CIT 157 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(2)(E) — 3 cases

BYD (H.K.) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 60 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 59 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(3) — 7 cases

HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, 2024 CIT 06 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).

Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 59 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

Hanon Sys. Alabama Corp. v. United States, 2025 CIT 94 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(3)(B) — 1 case

BYD (H.K.) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 60 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(3)(C) — 1 case

SeAH Steel VINA Corp. v. United States, 2025 CIT 157 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(l) — 3 cases

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(l)(A) — 5 cases

Peer Bearing Co.—Changshan v. United States, 2015 CIT 143 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. United States, 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 698 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

Peer Bearing Co.—Changshan v. United States, 2015 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(l)(A)(i) — 1 case

SunEdison, Inc. v. United States, 2016 CIT 59 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(l)(B) — 2 cases

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(l)(C) — 5 cases

Peer Bearing Co.—Changshan v. United States, 2015 CIT 143 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. United States, 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 698 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(l)(D) — 3 cases

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(l)(E) — 2 cases

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(c) — 13 cases

Nippon Steel Corp., Nkk Corp., Kawasaki Steel Corp. & Sumitomo Metal Indus., Ltd. v. United States, & Uss-Posco Indus., 219 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “This government appeal challenges a preliminary injunction of the Court of International Trade prohibiting the Department of Commerce from continuing its administrative proceeding under 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(c) and 19 C.F.R. § 351 .”

Ceramark Tech., Inc. v. United States, 2014 CIT 114 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). “100-71, at 101 (1987) (legislative history of 19 U.S.C. § 1677j), Commerce may determine that a product in the penumbra of an order, outside the literal scope of its language, is covered by that order.”

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 808 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). “19 U.S.C. § 1677j (c)(2). As Commerce has made a final determination that the alleged “altered merchandise,” namely line and dual-certified pipe, is clearly excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty orders in effect on standard pipe, section 781(c)(1) “shall not apply,” as…”

Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 222 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).

Deacero S.A. De C v. v. United States, 817 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(c)(1) — 3 cases

Green Garden Produce, LLC v. United States, 2026 CIT 51 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2026).

Columbia Forest Prods. v. United States, 2019 CIT 98 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

Fedmet Res. Corp. v. United States, 2025 CIT 136 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(c)(2) — 2 cases

Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 222 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).

Columbia Forest Prods. v. United States, 2019 CIT 98 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(c)(l) — 4 cases

Deacero S.A. De C v. v. United States, 817 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(d) — 13 cases

Target Corp. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Target Corp. v. United States, 578 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “A later-developed merchandise anticircumvention inquiry is a specific type of scope inquiry governed by its own statutory provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(d), which codified Commerce’s administrative practice for analyzing whether later-developed merchandise fell within the scope of…”

Allegheny Bradford Corp. v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(d)(1) — 3 cases

Target Corp. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Target Corp. v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co. v. United States, 2019 CIT 70 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(d)(1)(B) — 1 case

Target Corp. v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(d)(l) — 10 cases

Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 829 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).

Torrington Co. v. United States, 786 F. Supp. 1021 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

Minebea Co., Ltd. v. United States, 782 F. Supp. 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

Am. NTN Bearing Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 739 F. Supp. 1555 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(d)(l)(A) — 3 cases

Target Corp. v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 183 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(d)(l)(D) — 1 case

Target Corp. v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(d)(l)(E) — 1 case

Target Corp. v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(e) — 7 cases

Deacero S.A. de C v. v. United States, 2013 CIT 126 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Brother Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 787 F. Supp. 1454 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(e)(1)(C) — 1 case

Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co. v. United States, 2019 CIT 70 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(e)(3) — 1 case

Brother Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 769 F. Supp. 374 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(e)(l) — 1 case

Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 2012 CIT 159 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

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

Target Corp. v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

Brother Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 769 F. Supp. 374 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(f) — 2 cases

Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. v. United States, 2025 CIT 11 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).

Feili Grp. (Fujian) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).

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.