namely that no party requests an administrative review of an unrelated third party.” PL Br. 11. In this case that party would be Stelco, the producer from whom Parkdale purchased the merchandise. PI. Br. 11. Parkdale argues that as a result of the Reseller Policy, "it no longer had reasonable protection against additional liability through automatic liquidation, because instead of needing only to rely upon a condition that had always occurred in the past (that nobody requests an administrative review of Parkdale), Parkdale also had to hope for something much less probable (that nobody would request an administrative review of Stelco).” PL Br. 11. 6 . “No one has a legal right to the maintenance of an existing rate or duty.’’ Norwegian Nitrogen Prods., 288 U.S. at 318, 53 S.Ct. 350 (<HOLDING>). 7 . 19 C.F.R. § 351.212 provides: Unlike the
holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms holding that congress or congressional committees failure to give notice to parties affected by proposed change in tariff laws would not affect validity of change and that hearing cannot be demanded as of right holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child holding that hearing officers noting the parties agreement did not constitute a change in the parties legal relationship