U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 12— TRADE ACT OF 1974 › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— ENFORCEMENT OF UNITED STATES RIGHTS UNDER TRADE AGREEMENTS AND RESPONSE TO CERTAIN FOREIGN TRADE PRACTICES

19 U.S.C. § 2417

Modification and termination of actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In general(1) The Trade Representative may modify or terminate any action, subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President with respect to such action, that is being taken under section 2411 of this title if—(A) any of the conditions described in section 2411(a)(2) of this title exist,(B) the burden or restriction on United States commerce of the denial rights, or of the acts, policies, and practices, that are the subject of such action has increased or decreased, or(C) such action is being taken under section 2411(b) of this title and is no longer appropriate.(2) Before taking any action under paragraph (1) to modify or terminate any action taken under section 2411 of this title, the Trade Representative shall consult with the petitioner, if any, and with representatives of the domestic industry concerned, and shall provide opportunity for the presentation of views by other interested persons affected by the proposed modification or termination concerning the effects of the modification or termination and whether any modification or termination of the action is appropriate.(b) Notice; report to Congress

The Trade Representative shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of, and report in writing to the Congress with respect to, any modification or termination of any action taken under section 2411 of this title and the reasons therefor.

(c) Review of necessity(1) If—(A) a particular action has been taken under section 2411 of this title during any 4-year period, and(B) neither the petitioner nor any representative of the domestic industry which benefits from such action has submitted to the Trade Representative during the last 60 days of such 4-year period a written request for the continuation of such action,such action shall terminate at the close of such 4-year period.(2) The Trade Representative shall notify by mail the petitioner and representatives of the domestic industry described in paragraph (1)(B) of any termination of action by reason of paragraph (1) at least 60 days before the date of such termination.(3) If a request is submitted to the Trade Representative under paragraph (1)(B) to continue taking a particular action under section 2411 of this title, or if a request is submitted to the Trade Representative under section 2416(c)(2) of this title to reinstate action, the Trade Representative shall conduct a review of—(A) the effectiveness in achieving the objectives of section 2411 of this title of—(i) such action, and(ii) other actions that could be taken (including actions against other products or services), and(B) the effects of such actions on the United States economy, including consumers.(Pub. L. 93–618, title III, § 307, as added Pub. L. 100–418, title I, § 1301(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1174; amended Pub. L. 114–125, title VI, § 602(b)(4), Feb. 24, 2016, 130 Stat. 184.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2016—Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 114–125 inserted “or if a request is submitted to the Trade Representative under section 2416(c)(2) of this title to reinstate action,” after “under section 2411 of this title,” in introductory provisions.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable to petitions filed, and investigations initiated, under section 2412 of this title on or after Aug. 23, 1988, and petitions filed, and investigations initiated, before Aug. 23, 1988, if by such date no decision had been made under section 2414 of this title regarding the petition or investigation, see section 1301(c) of Pub. L. 100–418, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 2411 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States, 622 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States, 622 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “This court has explained that 19 U.S.C. § 2417 (c)(1) “provides that actions taken under section 2411 (e.”
Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States, 556 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). · cites it 10× “Gilda alleges that Customs has no legal authority to collect the 100% duties because pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2417 (c) the “retaliation list” established by the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) for the imposition of the 100% duties on certain imports from the European…”
Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 3× “Termination of the Retaliatory List Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2417 (c)(1)(B), the retaliation list expired on July 29, 2003.”
In Re Section 301 Cases, 2023 CIT 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). · cites it 4× “England Corporation, Metroflor Corporation, and Jasco Products Company LLC commenced the first of approximately 3,600 cases 1 (“the Section 301 Cases”) contesting the imposition of a third and fourth round of tariffs by the Office of the United States Trade Representative…”
Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States, 446 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “B Gilda next argues that pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2417 (c) the hormone beef retaliation list expired by force of law in July 2003, four years after its inception.”
Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States, 625 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 4× “The current matter is Gilda’s second challenge to the retaliation list before this Court; this challenge, like the one before it, involves the “automatic termination” provision contained in 19 U.S.C. § 2417 (c). See Gilda Industries, Inc.”
Hmtx Indus. LLC v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2025). · cites it 8× “” 19 U.S.C. § 2417 (a)(1)(B). Following a remand order instructing USTR to further explain how it considered significant public comments aired in response to the proposed modifications, USTR produced a remand redetermination articulating in greater detail its contemporaneous…”
Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United Sta, 2008 CIT 51 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). · cites it 10× “The government filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that (1) Gilda lacked “prudential standing” to bring the claim and (2) section 2417(c) does not apply to USTR actions implemented over 4 years ago. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and denied…”
Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2006). “B Gilda next argues that pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2417 (c) the hormone beef retaliation list expired by force of law in July 2003, four years after its inception.”
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.