context: . The Court does not find the decisions Plaintiff cites, relating to the economic consequences of participation in administrative reviews, to be of direct relevance. On the other hand, cases challenging the scope of agency authority support the Court's rationale.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: residual jurisdiction found where the existence of the anti-dumping duty order itself was called into question
citation_a.sentence: See Techsnabexport 16 CIT 420, 795 F.Supp. 428 (residual jurisdiction found where the existence of the anti-dumping duty order itself was called into question); see also Jia Farn, 17 CIT at 191, 817 F.Supp. 969, 973 (while exercising its residual jurisdiction, the Court found Commerce’s initiation of a changed circumstances review for the purpose of reinstatement of an antidumping duty order, to be within the scope of agency authority under section 1675).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 817 F.Supp. 969, 973
citation_b.parenthetical: while exercising its residual jurisdiction, the Court found Commerce's initiation of a changed circumstances review for the purpose of reinstatement of an antidumping duty order, to be within the scope of agency authority under section 1675
citation_b.sentence: See Techsnabexport 16 CIT 420, 795 F.Supp. 428 (residual jurisdiction found where the existence of the anti-dumping duty order itself was called into question); see also Jia Farn, 17 CIT at 191, 817 F.Supp. 969, 973 (while exercising its residual jurisdiction, the Court found Commerce’s initiation of a changed circumstances review for the purpose of reinstatement of an antidumping duty order, to be within the scope of agency authority under section 1675).