19 U.S.C. § 2251

Action to facilitate positive adjustment to import competition

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

(a) Presidential action

If the United States International Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to in this part as the “Commission”) determines under section 2252(b) of this title that an article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article, the President, in accordance with this part, shall take all appropriate and feasible action within his power which the President determines will facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.

(b) Positive adjustment to import competition(1) For purposes of this part, a positive adjustment to import competition occurs when—(A) the domestic industry—(i) is able to compete successfully with imports after actions taken under section 2254 of this title terminate, or(ii) the domestic industry experiences an orderly transfer of resources to other productive pursuits; and(B) dislocated workers in the industry experience an orderly transition to productive pursuits.(2) The domestic industry may be considered to have made a positive adjustment to import competition even though the industry is not of the same size and composition as the industry at the time the investigation was initiated under section 2252(b) of this title.(Pub. L. 93–618, title II, § 201, Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2011; Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 106(b)(3), July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 193; Pub. L. 98–573, title II, § 249, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2998; Pub. L. 100–418, title I, § 1401(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1225.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–418, in amending section generally, substituted provisions relating to action to facilitate positive adjustment to import competition for provisions relating to investigation by International Trade Commission. See section 2252 of this title.

1984—Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 98–573, § 249(1)(A), substituted “inventory (whether maintained by domestic producers, importers, wholesalers, or retailers), and” for “inventory, and”.

Subsec. (b)(2)(D). Pub. L. 98–573, § 249(1)(B)–(D), added subpar. (D).

Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 98–573, § 249(2), added par. (7).

1979—Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 96–39 substituted “subtitles A and B of title VII or section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930” for “the Antidumping Act, 1921, section 303 or 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1988 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–418, title I, § 1401(c), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1241, provided that: “The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) [enacting section 2254 of this title and amending sections 1330, 2133, 2251 to 2253, 2274, 2354, and 2703 of this title and provisions set out as a note under section 2112 of this title] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 23, 1988] and shall apply with respect to investigations initiated under chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 [this part] on or after that date. Any petition filed under section 201 of such chapter [19 U.S.C. 2251] before such date of enactment, and with respect to which the United States International Trade Commission did not make a finding before such date with respect to serious injury or the threat thereof, may be withdrawn and refiled, without prejudice, by the petitioner under section 202(a) of such chapter [19 U.S.C. 2252(a)] (as amended by this section).”

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–573 effective on 15th day after Oct. 30, 1984, see section 214(a), (b) of Pub. L. 98–573, set out as a note under section 1304 of this title.

Effective Date of 1979 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–39 effective Jan. 1, 1980, see section 107 of Pub. L. 96–39, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1671 of this title.

Study on Trade Adjustment Assistance for Fishermen

Pub. L. 107–210, div. A, title I, § 143, Aug. 6, 2002, 116 Stat. 953, required Secretary of Commerce, not later than 1 year after Aug. 6, 2002, to conduct a study and report to Congress on appropriateness and feasibility of a trade adjustment assistance program for fishermen.

Term “Industry” To Include Producers Located in United States Insular Possessions

Pub. L. 98–67, title II, § 214(f), Aug. 5, 1983, 97 Stat. 393, provided that: “For purposes of chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 [this part], the term ‘industry’ shall include producers located in the United States insular possessions.”

Executive DocumentsEx. Ord. No. 11913. Collection of Information for Import Relief and Adjustment Assistance

Ex. Ord. No. 11913, Apr. 26, 1976, 41 F.R. 17721, provided:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, including Section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), and as President of the United States of America, in order to reduce the reporting burden with respect to the collection of information pursuant to Title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 2011, 19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.) and consistent with Chapter 35 of Title 44 of the United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Whenever the United States International Trade Commission, in connection with investigations pursuant to Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2251), collects factual data from firms on their sales, production, employment, and financial experience, the Commission shall provide such information to the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor.

Sec. 2. The Secretaries of Commerce and Labor shall ensure that the factual data, received pursuant to Section 1, are used solely for the performance of their functions pursuant to Sections 264 and 224, respectively, of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2354 and 2274).

Gerald R. Ford.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 48 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 495 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 495 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 5× “Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2251 , permits the President of the United States to impose safeguard duties on imported merchandise if the merchandise “is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of…”

Silfab Solar, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, Chairman Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Comm'r Kevin K. McAleenan, Off. of the U.S. Trade Rep., U.S. Trade Rep. Robert E. Lighthizer, Solarworld Americas, Inc., 892 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “19 U.S.C. § 2251 (a) (emphases added). Such actions are typically referred to as "safeguard measures.”

Maple Leaf Fish Co. v. The United States, 762 F.2d 86 (Fed. Cir. 1985). · cites it 5× “The statute provides that in such a case a petition may be filed with the ITC ( 19 U.S.C. § 2251 (a)(1)); that agency must then investigate, with public hearings, whether increased imports injure or threaten to injure a domestic injury producing an article like or directly…”

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 63 F.4th 25 (Fed. Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “7, 2002), that imposed so- called “safeguard” (or “§ 201”) duties under different statu- tory authority, namely, § 201 et.”

Sneaker Circus, Inc. v. Carter, 457 F. Supp. 771 (E.D.N.Y 1978). · cites it 8× “They claim that (1) the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), in making its “good cause” deter- „ mination, failed to comply with § 201 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2251 3 ; (2) that the President failed to comply with §§ 202 and 203 of the Act, 19 U.”

Solar Energy Indus. Ass'n v. United States, 86 F.4th 885 (Fed. Cir. 2023). · cites it 3× “” 19 U.S.C. § 2251 (a). Imposition of a new safeguard is governed by 19 U.”

Hazel Paden v. U. S. Dep't of Labor & the Sec'y of the Dep't of Labor, 562 F.2d 470 (7th Cir. 1977). · cites it 3× “, 19 U.S.C. § 2251 (b)(1) and 19 U.S.C. § 2251 (b)(6).”

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. The United States & Zenith Radio Corp., 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “In 1977, the Commission, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2251 (1976), recommended a restriction on the quantity of imports of color television receivers from Japan.”

United States v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 789 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “Rather, it focused on a different statutory scheme; it addressed whether “safeguard duties” paid under § 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2251 , are considered “United States import duties” under 19 U.”

Invenergy Renewables LLC v. United States, 2020 CIT 144 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). · cites it 2× “Trade Act of 1974 §§ 201̽04, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2251–54 (2012). Section 201 dictates that, upon petitions from domestic entities or industries, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) may make an affirmative determination that serious injury or a threat of serious injury to that…”

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 2× “” 19 U.S.C. § 2251 (a)(2000) (emphasis added).”

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “I Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2251 (a), authorizes the President to take appropriate action to protect domestic industries from substantial injury due to increased quantities of imports.”

Show all 48 citing cases →

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.