Countervailing Duties

Overview
News
Articles

While the 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. Call Jeff Neeley or Matt McGrath in the Washington, D.C. office at 202-483-0070 for further information.

1. How Cases Begin—Cases may be filed by a U.S. industry that can show that (a) imports are subsidized; and (b) the U.S. industry is being injured by these subsidized imports.

2. Deadlines—Cases have very strict and fast deadlines. The first hearing is three 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.

3. Agencies involved—Cases are heard at the U.S. Department of Commerce (regarding the level of subsidies) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (regarding whether injury exists).

4. Type of Relief—Relief is in the form of additional duties. U.S. producers that are faced with subsidized imports like these cases because a successful case will effectively offset such subsidies.

5. Risks to Importers—Importers operating under a subsidy order need to be very cautious because the subsidy rates may change and the scope of the order may be modified.

6. What Is A Subsidy?—Subsidies may be such things as export subsidies, special tax zones for exporters, government loans at below market rates, preferential tax benefits for exporters, preferential tax benefits for certain industries, equity infusions in non-equity worthy companies.

7. 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 subsidy margin is for entries during that year.

For example, a company might deposit 10% subsidy duties for January-December 2011. In January 2012, the 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.

8. ITC Injury Determination—Even if the Commerce Department finds subsidies, the CVD order will not go into effect unless the ITC also finds that the domestic industry is injured by reason of the subsidized 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 subsidized 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.

9. The Administrative Review Process—This process only occurs at the Commerce Department. The retrospective assessment system in the U.S. means that the final liability for subsidies is determined only after the opportunity for a review. 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 CVD paid as a result of the review could be lower, or higher, than the amounts deposited initially.

10. 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 (including an importer) may request a clarification. 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 the order, and (2) if not, then Commerce conducts a further inquiry.

In further inquiry cases, Commerce often examines five factors to assist it in determining if a product is in or out of the scope of the order. The factors are:

Physical characteristics of the product
Expectation of ultimate consumers
Ultimate use of product
Channels of trade of product, and
Manner of advertising and display

Because BRC is experienced in both customs law and antidumping/CVD practice, it is in a strong position to help clients navigate the complex issues that arise in the scope context.

11. Other Issues—Other issues that arise in CVD cases, which we frequently address, include five year “sunset” reviews determining whether there still would be injury to the U.S. industry if the CVD order were lifted,

12. Circumvention Issues—Circumvention of CVD orders can have administrative effects under the CVD law, as well as penalties from U.S. Customs & Border Protection, and even criminal liability in certain instances. Circumvention issues regarding the CVD 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.

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
Jan. 5, 2026: Upholstered Wooden Products, Kitchen Cabinets, and Vanities Tariff Hike Delayed
Jan. 5, 2026: CBP Mandates Electronic Refunds Effective February 6
Dec. 23, 2025: U.S. Imposes Phased-In Duties on Certain Nicaraguan Imports
Dec. 23, 2025: USTR Publishes Semiconductor Section 301 Results
Dec. 22, 2025: Big Fines for (alleged) Duty Evaders
Dec. 17, 2025: U.S. Eases Tariffs for Switzerland and Liechtenstein While Trade Deal is Negotiated
Dec. 12, 2025: USTR Greer Says More Trade Deals are Coming, While U.S. Considers USMCA Review in 2026
Dec. 12, 2025: CAFC Rules Planning Calendar Classification Already Decided
Dec. 12, 2025: Customs Proposes Revoking Handicap Article Status From Ramps
Dec. 9, 2025: OFAC Imposes Large Russia Penalties as 2025 Comes to a Close
Dec. 5, 2025: BIS Steel & Aluminum Derivative Decision Pushed to 2026
Nov. 17, 2025: Reciprocal Tariff Exemptions Expanded
Nov. 14, 2025: Switzerland Announces 15% Tariff Deal with the United States

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
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
June 6, 2014: Larry Friedman Elected Vice President of CITBA
November 05, 2013: Barnes/Richardson Secures Unanimous Dismissal by ITC
July 26, 2013: BRC Partner Quoted on Threaded Rod Antidumping Investigation
February 28, 2013: Barnes/Richardson Client Receives De Minimis Rate in Hardwood Plywood Preliminary Determination
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