Countervailing Duties
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. 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
- Jan. 8, 2024
- Customs Will Deactivate 232 Exclusions at 95%
- Dec. 27, 2023
- USTR Extends Section 301 Exclusions into the New Year
- Dec. 19, 2023
- House Select Committee Advocates Trade Changes with China
- Dec. 14, 2023
- A U.S.-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement is Very Unlikely
- Dec. 11, 2023
- Groups Advocate Blocking "De Minimis" Entries to stop Black-Market Entry of Deadly Drugs
- Dec. 6, 2023
- CBP Counts Down to Lift Off on UFLPA Portal
- Dec. 5, 2023
- Global Arrangement On Sustainable Steel And Aluminum Negotiations Failed, Maybe
- Dec. 4, 2023
- Customs Clarifies "Date of Entry" Meaning
- Nov. 28, 2023
- EPA Finalizes Regulations on PFAS Reporting, Including Reporting of Imported Articles that Contain PFAS Since 2011
- Nov. 8, 2023
- Focus on AGOA Renewal as GSP Appears to Languish
- Nov. 3, 2023
- Senators Pitch Americas Act as Win-Win, Win-Lose
- Oct. 30, 2023
- Senator Promoting Carbon Border Adjustment Tax
- Oct. 26, 2023
- U.S. Sets Forth Arctic Strategy With Significant New Trade Component
- Oct. 4, 2023
- Supreme Court Declines to Review Case Arguing Protest Timing
- Sep 27, 2023
- U.S. Companies in China are Feeling Pessimistic and are Acting on the Feeling
- Sep. 19, 2023
- COAC Recommendations for Customs
- Sep. 12 2023
- CIT Finds That Liquidations Do Not (Always) Bar Remedy
- Aug. 18, 2023
- Two CIT Decisions Clarify Some (Potential) Importer Responsibilities
- Jul. 28, 2023
- Study of forced labor risk in U.S. food supply provides stepping stone for future action
- Jul. 6, 2023
- Sheffield Hallam Publishes Lists of Alleged XUAR Companies
- Jun. 28, 2023
- The World Customs Organization Elects a New Leader
- Jun. 23, 2023
- SHU Publishes "Desk-Based" Forced Labor Research Strategies
- Jun. 22, 2023
- Customs Broker Continued Education Requirements Finalized
- Jun. 20, 2023
- De Minimis Entries in Congressional Sights
- Jun. 15, 2023
- Congress Seeks Industry Input Regarding Updates Need to Modernize U.S. Customs Laws
- Jun. 9, 2023
- Customs Ruling Clarifies Documents that May be Required for USMCA Post-Entry Claims
- May 19, 2023
- Single EU Customs Data Hub Proposed
- 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
Copyright © Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, LLP. All Rights Reserved
Privacy | Terms
Website by FirmWise