19 U.S.C. § 1677m

Conduct of investigations and administrative reviews

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

(a) Treatment of voluntary responses in countervailing or antidumping duty investigations and reviews(1) In generalIn any investigation under part I or II of this subtitle or a review under section 1675(a) of this title in which the administering authority has, under section 1677f–1(c)(2) of this title or section 1677f–1(e)(2)(A) of this title (whichever is applicable), limited the number of exporters or producers examined, or determined a single country-wide rate, the administering authority shall establish an individual countervailable subsidy rate or an individual weighted average dumping margin for any exporter or producer not initially selected for individual examination under such sections who submits to the administering authority the information requested from exporters or producers selected for examination, if—(A) such information is so submitted by the date specified—(i) for exporters and producers that were initially selected for examination, or(ii) for the foreign government, in a countervailing duty case where the administering authority has determined a single country-wide rate; and(B) the number of exporters or producers subject to the investigation or review is not so large that any additional individual examination of such exporters or producers would be unduly burdensome to the administering authority and inhibit the timely completion of the investigation or review.(2) Determination of unduly burdensomeIn determining if an individual examination under paragraph (1)(B) would be unduly burdensome, the administering authority may consider the following:(A) The complexity of the issues or information presented in the proceeding, including questionnaires and any responses thereto.(B) Any prior experience of the administering authority in the same or similar proceeding.(C) The total number of investigations under part I or II and reviews under section 1675 of this title being conducted by the administering authority as of the date of the determination.(D) Such other factors relating to the timely completion of each such investigation and review as the administering authority considers appropriate.(b) Certification of submissions

Any person providing factual information to the administering authority or the Commission in connection with a proceeding under this subtitle on behalf of the petitioner or any other interested party shall certify that such information is accurate and complete to the best of that person’s knowledge.

If an interested party, promptly after receiving a request from the administering authority or the Commission for information, notifies the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be) that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in which such party is able to submit the information, the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be) shall consider the ability of the interested party to submit the information in the requested form and manner and may modify such requirements to the extent necessary to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party.

(2) Assistance to interested parties

The administering authority and the Commission shall take into account any difficulties experienced by interested parties, particularly small companies, in supplying information requested by the administering authority or the Commission in connection with investigations and reviews under this subtitle, and shall provide to such interested parties any assistance that is practicable in supplying such information.

(d) Deficient submissionsIf the administering authority or the Commission determines that a response to a request for information under this subtitle does not comply with the request, the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be) shall promptly inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion of investigations or reviews under this subtitle. If that person submits further information in response to such deficiency and either—(1) the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be) finds that such response is not satisfactory, or(2) such response is not submitted within the applicable time limits,then the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be) may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses.(e) Use of certain informationIn reaching a determination under section 1671b, 1671d, 1673b, 1673d, 1675, or 1675b of this title the administering authority and the Commission shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the administering authority or the Commission, if—(1) the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission,(2) the information can be verified,(3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination,(4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the administering authority or the Commission with respect to the information, and(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.(f) Nonacceptance of submissions

If the administering authority or the Commission declines to accept into the record any information submitted in an investigation or review under this subtitle, it shall, to the extent practicable, provide to the person submitting the information a written explanation of the reasons for not accepting the information.

(g) Public comment on information

Information that is submitted on a timely basis to the administering authority or the Commission during the course of a proceeding under this subtitle shall be subject to comment by other parties to the proceeding within such reasonable time as the administering authority or the Commission shall provide. The administering authority and the Commission, before making a final determination under section 1671d, 1673d, 1675, or 1675b of this title shall cease collecting information and shall provide the parties with a final opportunity to comment on the information obtained by the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be) upon which the parties have not previously had an opportunity to comment. Comments containing new factual information shall be disregarded.

(h) Termination of investigation or revocation of order for lack of interestThe administering authority may—(1) terminate an investigation under part I or II of this subtitle with respect to a domestic like product if, prior to publication of an order under section 1671e or 1673e of this title, the administering authority determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of that domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in issuance of an order; and(2) revoke an order issued under section 1671e or 1673e of this title with respect to a domestic like product, or terminate an investigation suspended under section 1671c or 1673c of this title with respect to a domestic like product, if the administering authority determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of that domestic like product, have expressed a lack of interest in the order or suspended investigation.(i) VerificationThe administering authority shall verify all information relied upon in making—(1) a final determination in an investigation,(2) a revocation under section 1675(d) of this title, and(3) a final determination in a review under section 1675(a) of this title, if—(A) verification is timely requested by an interested party as defined in section 1677(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of this title, and(B) no verification was made under this subparagraph during the 2 immediately preceding reviews and determinations under section 1675(a) of this title of the same order, finding, or notice, except that this clause shall not apply if good cause for verification is shown.(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 782, as added Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 231(a), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4893; amended Pub. L. 114–27, title V, § 506, June 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 386.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2015—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–27 designated existing provisions as par. (1) and inserted heading, redesignated former par. (1) and subpars. (A) and (B) as subpar. (A) and cls. (i) and (ii), respectively, added par. (2), and redesignated former par. (2) as subpar. (B) of par. (1) and amended it generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (B) of par. (1) read as follows: “the number of exporters or producers who have submitted such information is not so large that individual examination of such exporters or producers would be unduly burdensome and inhibit the timely completion of the investigation.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section 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 an Effective Date of 1994 Amendment note under section 1671 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 387 cases (75 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 13× “Finally, it argues that Commerce violated 19 U.S.C. § 1677m by not notifying Ta Chen of deficiencies in its information gathering .”

Tri Union Frozen Prods., Inc. v. United States, 163 F. Supp. 3d 1255 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). · cites it 18× “Quoc Viet contends that “Commerce failed to apply the appropriate legal standard under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m in determining whether individual examination of Quoc Viet as a voluntary respondent would have been unduly burdensome and would have inhibited the timely completion of the…”

Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). · cites it 16× “Hung Vuong spends roughly 38 Section 1677e(a)(2)(B) requires Commerce to use facts otherwise available when an interested party “fails to pro- vide such information [requested by Commerce] by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested,…”

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). · cites it 21× “In addition, Commerce may use facts available where an interested party or any other person: (1) withholds information that has been requested by Commerce; (2) fails to provide the requested information by the requested date or in the form and manner requested, subject to 19…”

China Kingdom Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). · cites it 20× “Commerce Erred in Concluding that 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) Did Not Apply Because China Kingdom, Not Commerce, Discovered the Error in the Originally-Submitted Daxin Information The valid determination by Commerce that China Kingdom’s August 8, 2002 submission of the substitute Daxin…”

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). · cites it 10× “In subjecting the use of “facts otherwise available” to 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d), the statute applies a procedure when Commerce determines that a response 'to a request for information does not comply with the request.”

Nat'l Nail Corp. v. United States, 390 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019). · cites it 12× “in the form and manner requested, subject to [ 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c)(1) 24 and (e) 25 ]," or "significantly impedes" a proceeding, the statute provides that Commerce "shall, subject to [ 19 U.”

Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). · cites it 11× “nformation 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…”

Deacero S.A.P.I. De C v. v. United States, 2018 CIT 155 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 14× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d). If a party is provided with an opportunity to comply and does so, Commerce may nevertheless "disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses" if it determines that the information provided is not satisfactory or untimely, subject to 19 U.”

Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 12× “mation 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 title, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of…”

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 715 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). · cites it 14× “In addition, Commerce may use facts available where an interested party or any other person: (1) withholds information that has been requested by Commerce; (2) fails to provide the requested information by the requested date or in the form and manner requested, subject to 19…”

ABB Inc. v. United States, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 6× “Moreover, Hyundai argues that Commerce failed to comply with the statutory requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) because it failed to notify Hyundai of any deficiencies in its reporting or provide it an opportunity to cure those deficiencies.”

Show all 387 citing cases →

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(I) — 1 case

Cs Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd. v. United States, 832 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(a) — 36 cases

Tri Union Frozen Prods., Inc. v. United States, 163 F. Supp. 3d 1255 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). “Quoc Viet contends that “Commerce failed to apply the appropriate legal standard under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m in determining whether individual examination of Quoc Viet as a voluntary respondent would have been unduly burdensome and would have inhibited the timely completion of the…”

Grobest & I-Mei Indus. (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 9 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

Husteel Co. v. United States, 2015 CIT 100 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo & Wood Indus. Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 67 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(a)(1) — 3 cases

Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo & Wood Indus. Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 67 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Primesource Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. United States, 111 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2024).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(a)(1)(A) — 2 cases

Shenzhen Xinboda Indus. Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 74 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(a)(1)(B) — 2 cases

Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “Hung Vuong spends roughly 38 Section 1677e(a)(2)(B) requires Commerce to use facts otherwise available when an interested party “fails to pro- vide such information [requested by Commerce] by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested,…”

Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo & Wood Indus. Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 67 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(a)(2) — 9 cases

Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo & Wood Indus. Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 67 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co. v. United States, 839 F.3d 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Longkou Haimeng Mach. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(a)(2)(B) — 1 case

Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(a)(2)(c) — 1 case

CP Kelco (Shandong) Biological Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 10 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(a)(l) — 3 cases

Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co. v. United States, 839 F.3d 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 67 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(a)(l)(A) — 1 case

Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Prods. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(b) — 1 case

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c) — 17 cases

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

Parkdale Int'l v. United States, 429 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

China Steel Corp. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

JMC Steel Grp. v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1290 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).

AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c)(1) — 16 cases

Maverick Tube Corp. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Nat'l Nail Corp. v. United States, 390 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019). “in the form and manner requested, subject to [ 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c)(1) 24 and (e) 25 ]," or "significantly impedes" a proceeding, the statute provides that Commerce "shall, subject to [ 19 U.”

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

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c)(1)(1994) — 1 case

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c)(2) — 6 cases

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

Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

World Finer Foods, Inc. v. United States, 2000 CIT 72 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

Hebei Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 2005 CIT 126 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).

Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. v. United States, 2003 CIT 70 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c)(l) — 29 cases

Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Tech. Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 134 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).

China Steel Corp. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

Fabrique De Fer De Charleroi S.A. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 801 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

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

Peer Bearing Co. v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) — 214 cases

Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Finally, it argues that Commerce violated 19 U.S.C. § 1677m by not notifying Ta Chen of deficiencies in its information gathering .”

China Kingdom Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “Commerce Erred in Concluding that 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) Did Not Apply Because China Kingdom, Not Commerce, Discovered the Error in the Originally-Submitted Daxin Information The valid determination by Commerce that China Kingdom’s August 8, 2002 submission of the substitute Daxin…”

ABB Inc. v. United States, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “Moreover, Hyundai argues that Commerce failed to comply with the statutory requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) because it failed to notify Hyundai of any deficiencies in its reporting or provide it an opportunity to cure those deficiencies.”

Deacero S.A.P.I. De C v. v. United States, 2018 CIT 155 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d). If a party is provided with an opportunity to comply and does so, Commerce may nevertheless "disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses" if it determines that the information provided is not satisfactory or untimely, subject to 19 U.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d)(1) — 1 case

Deacero S.A.P.I. De C v. v. US (Fed. Cir. 2021).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d)(1994) — 1 case

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “In addition, Commerce may use facts available where an interested party or any other person: (1) withholds information that has been requested by Commerce; (2) fails to provide the requested information by the requested date or in the form and manner requested, subject to 19…”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d)(1999) — 1 case

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d)(2) — 2 cases

Maui Pineapple Co., Ltd. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

Hyosung Corp. v. United States, 2011 CIT 34 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d)(l) — 1 case

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e) — 106 cases

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “In subjecting the use of “facts otherwise available” to 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d), the statute applies a procedure when Commerce determines that a response 'to a request for information does not comply with the request.”

Torrington Co. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 845 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

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

Huvis Corp. v. United States, 570 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(1) — 3 cases

Prime Time Com. LLC v. United States, 2019 CIT 86 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(1994) — 1 case

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(2) — 12 cases

Torrington Co. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 845 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

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

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(3) — 18 cases

Torrington Co. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 845 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).

Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(4) — 10 cases

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

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

Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(5) — 2 cases

Longkou Haimeng Mach. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(8) — 1 case

Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. v. United States, 2023 CIT 22 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e)(l) — 9 cases

Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Tech. Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 134 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).

Maui Pineapple Co., Ltd. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

Torrington Co. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 845 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

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

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(f) — 2 cases

Husteel Co. v. United States, 2015 CIT 66 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 2011 CIT 21 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(g) — 47 cases

Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 2010 CIT 47 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).

Qvd Food Co., Ltd. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Skf USA, Inc. v. United States, 537 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States, 516 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(g)(1999) — 1 case

Anshan Iron & Steel Co. v. United States, 2003 CIT 83 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(h)(2) — 1 case

Trs. in Bankr. of North Am. Rubber Thread Co. v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) — 68 cases

Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “mation 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 title, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of…”

Suntec Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Shakeproof Assembly Components, Div. of Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Zhejiang Dunan Hetian Metal Co., Ltd. v. United States, 652 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i)(1) — 16 cases

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

Posco v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

Linyi Chengen Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, 2019 CIT 67 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).

PT. Asia Pac. Fibers Tbk v. United States, 2023 CIT 175 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i)(1994) — 1 case

Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. v. United States, 143 F. Supp. 2d 958 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i)(2) — 3 cases

AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

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

AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 2002 CIT 107 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i)(3) — 13 cases

Hontex Enter., Inc. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. United States, 662 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

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

Hitachi Energy USA Inc. v. United States, 34 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

Yantai Timken Co., Ltd. v. United States, 521 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i)(3)(A) — 1 case

Wuhan Bee Healthy Co. v. United States, 2007 CIT 113 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i)(l) — 12 cases

Zhejiang Dunan Hetian Metal Co., Ltd. v. United States, 652 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

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

Maverick Tube Corp. v. United States, 2017 CIT 146 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

Nec Corp. & Hnsx Supercomputers, Inc. v. United States & Dep't of Com., & Cray Rsch., Inc., 151 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

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.