19 U.S.C. § 81g
Granting of application
If the Board finds that the proposed plans and location are suitable for the accomplishment of the purpose of a foreign trade zone under this chapter, and that the facilities and appurtenances which it is proposed to provide are sufficient it shall make the grant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1969–1995 · leading case: Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Brown, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 663 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Brown, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 663 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). “Instead, plaintiffs argue, the plain language of 19 U.S.C. § 81g requires the Board to grant a subzone application meeting § 81g’s criteria of suitable location and sufficient facilities.”
Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Franklin, 822 F. Supp. 759 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). “” 19 U.S.C. § 81g (1988). This statute requires the Board to grant a FTZ or subzone application if: (1) the applicant’s proposed plans and location “are suitable for the accomplishment of the purpose of a foreign trade zone”; and (2) the applicant proposes to provide sufficient…”
Conoco, Inc. v. United States Foreign-Trade Zones Bd., 885 F. Supp. 257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). “” 19 U.S.C. § 81g (1988). 3 . The proviso to which this portion of the legislative history refers removed the FTZA's prior requirement that duties be paid on merchandise remaining within a zone for over two years.”
Armco Steel Corp. v. Stans, 303 F. Supp. 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). “” Armeo contends that these findings do not comply with the requirements of the Act and Regulations which provide that the Zones Board must find that the “proposed plans and location are suitable for the accomplishment of the purpose of a foreign trade zone” (19 U.S.C. § 81g)…”
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.