Antidumping

Overview
News
Articles

Antidumping law is extremely complex and practice in the area is changing constantly, the summary below provides a quick reference to the main issues. Because we have one of the largest trade remedies’ practices in the United States, we would be glad to answer any specific questions that you may have on these issues. Contact any Barnes/Richardson lawyer for further information.

How Cases Begin – Cases may be filed by a U.S. industry that can show that (a) prices of imports are unfairly low; and (b) the U.S. industry is being injured by these unfairly priced imports.
Deadlines – Cases have very strict and fast deadlines. The first hearing is 3 weeks after the filing of a petition. Final determinations are made within one year. Interim relief is generally granted within 160 days of the initial filing.
Agencies involved – Cases are heard at the U.S. Department of Commerce (regarding the level of dumping) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (regarding whether injury exists).
Type of Relief – Relief is in the form of additional duties.
U.S. producers which are faced with low prices (often from Vietnam or China) like these cases since a successful case will effectively put a floor on prices.
Risks to Importers – Importers operating under a dumping order need to be very cautious since the dumping duty rates may change and the scope of the order may be modified.
What Is Dumping? – 2 main elements to dumping case: (1) Sales in the US at below “normal value” and (2) material injury or threat of such injury by reason of the dumped imports.
What is “Normal Value”? – “Normal value” is defined, in order of preference as:
1. Home market prices,
2. Third country prices if insufficient home market sales,
3. A “constructed value” based on costs of manufacture plus SG&A expenses and “normal” profit, if insufficient home market and third country sales,
4. Special rule for non-market economies such as China and Vietnam, based on actual inputs and “surrogate values” for those inputs. Surrogate values from India, the Philippines or similar countries.
What Dumping Is Not – Not simply underselling United States manufacturers. Not “illegal” or necessarily “wrong.” Similarly, antidumping duties are not supposed to be a “punishment” but to offset the amount of the “dumping.”
Retroactive Assessment – Importers deposit duties based on the last completed calculation of rates, but these are only estimates and not final rates. Once each year a review will be conducted for the prior year’s sales to determine what the antidumping duty margin is for entries during that year.

For example, a company might deposit 10% dumping duties for January-December 2011. In January 2012 DOC begins to review those 2011 sales (review proceeding takes about one year). When a review is completed the actual duties are determined, which can be greater or less than the 10%. Importer gets refund or pays additional duties.

The key point for exporter and importers is to plan ahead. Once the sales are made, it is too late to do as much to affect the outcome. Careful planning is needed before the sales are made, and before the review occurs.
One effect of the review is the payment of the duties for the past period (so-called retrospective assessment). The other effect of the review is that the new rate will be applied as the new estimate of dumping until the next completed review
ITC Injury Determination – Even if the Commerce Department finds dumping, the dumping duty order will not go into effect unless the ITC also finds that the domestic industry is injured by reason of the dumped imports.
The essential argument of importers and exporters at the ITC usually is that U.S. industry is not being harmed (or threatened), usually because of a lack of any causal connection between the imports and the condition of the U.S. industry . The substantive argument often is based on an alleged lack of linkage between dumped imports and condition of the US industry, differences in product segments leading to no real competition, other causes of the problems of the industry. Procedural steps include filing a notice of appearance, completing questionnaires, participating in staff conferences, and filing briefs with legal/factual arguments.
Non-Reimbursement of dumping duties – Exporter/manufacturer may not simply reimburse importer for antidumping duties. If they do, Customs is to collect the dumping duties again. The idea is that antidumping duties will have economic impact in United States market and the duties are not to be absorbed by the exporter/manufacturer.
The Administrative Review Process – This process only occurs at the Commerce Department only. The retrospective assessment system in the U.S. means that the final liability for antidumping duties are determined only after the opportunity for a review. A review establishes the actual liability an importer must bear , which leads to a lack of predictability, particularly with non-market economies such as China and Vietnam. The usual time frame for a review is 16-17 months.
Importers may request reviews for their own imported goods. Either domestic parties or foreign manufacturer may request a review for a foreign company. If a company is to request a review itself, it should prepare in advance and know the risks of such a review, because the dumping duties paid as a result of the review could be lower, or higher, than the amounts deposited initially.
Scope Issues – Only “subject goods” are those that are described in the order.

Sometimes it is possible to “clarify” the order to have imports excluded from the case. If this is done, then the imports are simply not subject to the order. DOC conducts scope reviews.

Any interested party may request (including an importer). There is a two tier review process, depending on the case: (1) DOC decides whether the good is clearly outside of scope on face of scope, and (2) if not, then Commerce conducts a further inquiry.

In further inquiry cases, Commerce often examines 5 factors to assist it in determining if a product is in or out of the scope of the order.
The 5 factors are:
1. (a) Physical characteristics of the product
2. (b) Expectation of ultimate consumers
3. (c) Ultimate use of product
4. (d) Channels of trade of product, and
5. (e) Manner of advertising and display
Because BRC is experienced in both customs law and antidumping practice, it is in a strong position to help clients navigate the complex issues that arise in the scope context.
New Shipper Reviews – Subject exporters/manufacturers who have not been reviewed pay “all others” rate. The “all others rate” generally is very high. The new shipper companies are able to be reviewed and obtain their own rate for their shipments, which should be substantially lower. There are special rules for such reviews, which include the ability to ask for reviews twice a year rather than only annually.
Other Issues – Other issues that arise in dumping cases that we frequently work on include five year “sunset” reviews determining whether there still would be injury to the U.S. industry if the dumping order were lifted.
Circumvention Issues – Circumvention of dumping duties can have administrative effects under the dumping law, as well as penalties from U.S. Customs & Border Protection, and even criminal liability in certain instances. Circumvention issues regarding dumping order (particularly with regard to Chinese goods) have become increasingly common in recent years. BRC’s expertise with regard to both CBP and the Commerce Department puts us in the position to work through all aspects of the problem for clients and attain a just result.

May 13, 2026: And Suddenly, Shippers Have Choices
May 12, 2026: BIS Set to Publish Notice on Applications for Pharmaceutical Company-Specific Agreements
May 11, 2026: CBP Releases Updated Guidance on 232s for USMCA Medium and Heavy Vehicles
May 8, 2026: Court of International Trade Panel Strikes Down Section 122 Tariffs, Throws Out Most State Suits
May 4, 2026: U.S.& EU Align on Critical Minerals Supply Chain Resilience
Apr. 27, 2026: EU Commissioner Šefcovic on EU-U.S. Steel Talks
Apr. 24, 2026: CIT Decision Highlights CAPE Phase II IEEPA Refund Concerns
Apr. 24, 2026: Potential AD/CVD for Mexican, Vietnamese, & Thai Chassis
Apr. 21, 2026: CAPE Phase 1, Day One, Better Than Feared
Apr. 20, 2026: CBP Updates Guidance on Jones Act Waiver
Apr. 20, 2026: BIS Enforcement Action Against Coastal PVA Technology Signals Continued Scrutiny of EAR99 Exports
Apr. 14, 2026: CBP Publishes CAPE Phase 1 Update
Apr. 10, 2026: CBP Releases First CAPE IEEPA Refund Instructions
Apr. 2, 2026: Big Changes to Tariffs on Steel, Aluminum, Copper and their Derivative Articles
Apr. 1, 2026: CBP Publishes New Applications for ACE Portal Accounts
Mar. 31, 2026: CIT Potentially Broadens the Path for IEEPA Refunds—But the End Is Not Here Yet
Mar. 30, 2026: Section 232 Steel/Aluminum Content Reporting "Guidance"
Mar. 20, 2026: CBP Ruling Clarifies Customs Business, Addresses AI
Mar. 16, 2026: USTR Initiates Forced Labor Section 301 Investigation
Mar. 12, 2026: Here Come the Section 301 Investigations
Mar. 12, 2026: CBP Updates Court on IEEPA Refund Process and Technology
Mar. 11, 2026: AD/CVD Petitions Announced on Lithium Battery Chemicals from China
Mar. 10, 2026: Bills Introduced in House and Senate to Restrict Non-Resident Importers
Mar. 9, 2026: States Challenge Section 122 Tariffs
Mar. 6, 2026: Customs Proposes IEEPA Refund Process to Court
Mar. 4, 2026: CIT Orders Refunds; Appeal Likely
Mar. 2, 2026: IEEPA Case Expedited to CIT for Relief
Feb. 27, 2026: New AD/CVD Petitions on Truck Bed Covers from China
Feb. 27, 2026: "Trade Deals" Under Reciprocal Tariff Framework Have Uncertain (and Maybe Varying) Futures
Feb. 27, 2026: Battle of 122 Tariffs: Is it 10 or 15%?
Feb. 27, 2026: Wither De Minimis After the Supreme Court IEEPA Decision?
Feb. 19, 2026: Importers Beware: AD/CVD Scope is More Than Just the Scope Language
Feb. 11, 2026: Legislation Introduced to End First Sale
Feb. 10, 2026: United States & Bangladesh Agreement on Reciprocal Trade
Feb. 9, 2026: U.S. and India Announce Interim Trade Deal
Feb. 6, 2026: Secondary Tariffs Threatened on Countries Selling Oil to Cuba
Feb. 6, 2026: U.S. Finalizes Terms on Trade Agreement with Argentina
Feb. 3, 2026: Answering Dumping Questionnaires Just Got Harder
Feb. 2, 2026: Apparent India/U.S. IEEPA Duty Deal Reached
Feb. 1, 2026: El Salvador and Guatemala Get IEEPA Deals
Jan. 26, 2026: BIS and Customs Funding Appropriations: Where We Are and What's It All Mean
Jan. 26, 2026: Trump Threatens to Increase Korean Tariffs to 25%
Jan. 20, 2026: Trump Threatens Europeans With More Tariffs Over Greenland
Jan. 15, 2026: Negotiations Chosen Over Tariffs for Critical Minerals, For Now
Jan. 15, 2026: New 25% Tariff Imposed on Certain Semiconductor Imports
Jan. 15, 2026: Taiwan Said to Have Trade Deal with United States
Jan. 10, 2026: CAFC Upholds Use of Domestic Sales for Transaction Value

View Archive

Jan. 22, 2025: Webinar: What We Know After the Inauguration
Sep. 9, 2024: McPherson to Co-Moderate Export Enforcement Discussion
Jun. 2, 2023: BRC and Attorneys Ranked in 2023 Chambers Guide
Sept. 16, 2020: BRC Successfully Argues Before CAFC
May 4, 2017: BRC Partner Lawrence Friedman to Speak at Upcoming PERT Event
March 8, 2017: Barnes Partner Lawrence Friedman Quoted Regarding Tariff Engineering in Washington Post
January 30: David G. Forgue to Speak at Chicago Customs Broker and Freight Forwarder Association Seminar
January 19, 2017: David Forgue to Speak on AD/CVD Evasion at International Trade Club of Chicago
June 6, 2014: Larry Friedman Elected Vice President of CITBA
February 24, 2014: Barnes/Richardson Secures Unanimous Win at ITC
November 05, 2013: Barnes/Richardson Secures Unanimous Dismissal by ITC
July 26, 2013: BRC Partner Quoted on Threaded Rod Antidumping Investigation
July 10, 2013: Barnes/Richardson Secures Continuation of Suspension Agreement on Lemon Juice from Argentina
February 11, 2013: Barnes/Richardson Client Receives De Minimis Margin in Diamond Sawblades Case
May-June 2012: White House International Trade Initiatives
By: David G. Forgue
December 6, 2011: The Latest Lurking International Trade Liability
By: David G. Forgue
December 6, 2011: David Forgue on The Latest Lurking International Trade Liability
By: David G. Forgue
Aug. 10, 2011: Barnes/Richardson Publishes White Paper on ENFORCE Act
By: David G. Forgue
August 10, 2011: ENFORCE Act White Paper
By: David G. Forgue