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.

Jul. 23, 2024: Importers Required to Certify that Malaysian and Vietnamese Goods Don't Come From China
Jul. 23, 2024: OFAC's Extended Statue of Limitations
Jul. 22, 2024: Three Years in Prison for Export Violations for Hong Kong Man
Jul. 11, 2024: PVC, Aluminum, and Seafood New Target Sectors for Forced Labor
Jul. 10, 2024: Mexico and the US Have a Meeting of the Minds on Steel and Aluminum Transshipment
Jul. 9, 2024: Alleged Victim of Forced Labor in Chinese Prison Sues American Company for Damages
Jul. 8, 2024: BIS Publishes Report on Export Violations
Jul. 1, 2024: Supreme Court Overturns Chevron, Does it Impact Trade Cases?
Jun. 27, 2024: Crackdown on U.S. Outbound Investment to China
Jun. 24, 2024: AD & CVD Rates for Solar Cells of China Imposed on Imports From Vietnam
Jun. 24, 2024: $285K Export Control Penalty by BIS
Jun. 21, 2024: Illicit Houthi Shipment Sanctions
Jun. 18, 2024: The Nuclear Option: BIS's Power to Deny Export Privileges
Jun. 17, 2024: To Be or Not to Be, Is that the Question for USMCA?
Jun. 5, 2024: U.S. Company Settles Anti-Boycott Violation
Jun, 4, 2024: Indo-Pacific Framework Comments Due by June 21
May 30, 2024: USTR Requests Labor Review of Mexico's Largest Auto Assembly Plant
May 28, 2024: U.S. Companies Should Remain Vigilant for Anti-Boycott Provision
May 28, 2024: Most Section 301 Exclusions Expiring Mid-June
May 22, 2024: HTS Codes Published for Section 301 Tariff Increase
May 20, 2024: Commerce Makes Major Changes to (Some) Section 232 Exclusions
May 20, 2024: Senate Committee Takes Aim at Likely BMW and Jaguar Forced Labor Imports
May 17, 2024: DHS' Largest Ever One-Time UFLPA Entity List Expansion
May 8, 2024: The Largest-Ever Civil Penalty for "Made in USA" Violation
May 3, 2024: Final Rule on EV Battery Tax Credit
May 3, 2024: New Bill Proposes Battery Supply Chain Tracing
Apr. 30, 2024: Understanding Exporter Liability for Re-Exports
Apr. 25, 2024: Mexico Imposes Very High Duties on Some Imports
Apr. 22, 2024: Climate and Trade Task Force Created
Apr. 16, 2024: Russian Aluminum, Copper, and Nickel Prohibition
Apr. 12, 2024: Using French and British English to Classify Imports
Apr. 2, 2024: Customs Cracks Down on Invoice Descriptions
Mar. 22, 2023: DHS Gets a Budget Boost for Combating Forced Labor
Mar. 18, 2024: EAPA Final Rule Allows (Representatives of) Parties to Access Business Confidential Information
Feb. 16, 2024: Volkswagen High-End Vehicles Detained under Forced Labor Law
Feb. 15, 2024: First Bond Guidance in 33 Years Issued
Feb. 13, 2024: Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity Implemented
Feb. 12, 2024: The 2018 Trade War Has Been an Employment Failure
Feb. 9, 2024: New Export Control Know-Your-Customer (KYC) Requirements for IaaS Providers
Feb. 2, 2024: Court Clarifies What Qualifies as a "Basket Provision"
Feb. 1, 2024: Fine Makes Clear That the FTC is Serious About Made in USA
Jan. 30, 2024: Sheffield Issues Guide for the Solar or EV Battery Sectors
Jan. 26, 2024: Increased Controls of Exports Destined to Russia or Belarus
Jan. 24, 2024: Importer Avoids 7% Surprise on Agency Arrangement
Jan. 22, 2024: CIT Overturns AD/CVD Evasion Finding
Jan. 16, 2024: Drug Cartel Linked to $10.4 million Customs Fraud Penalty
Jan. 9, 2024: BIS's FAQs Highlight the Complexity of the AC/S IFR

View Archive

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