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.

Nov. 5, 2025: White House Caps China IEEPA Fentanyl and Reciprocal Tariffs at 10%
Nov. 4, 2025: U.S. and China Strike Trade Deal — Export Controls Front and Center
Oct. 30, 2025: U.S.-Korea Trade Deal Details Released
Oct. 28, 2025: Japan in Critical Minerals Agreement with U.S.
Oct. 27, 2025: Trump Terminates Talks on Trade with Canada
Oct. 27, 2025: USTR Confirms Trade Frameworks with Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam (so far)
Oct. 21, 2025: USTR Considers 301 Tariffs and Suspended CAFTA-DR Benefits for Nicaragua
Oct. 17, 2025: Trump Imposes Heavy Truck and Bus 232 Starting November 1
Oct. 16, 2025: Cassidy Pitches Carbon Tax as IEEPA Replacement
Oct. 9, 2025: Changes to Steel and Aluminum Duties are in the Wind
Oct. 7, 2025: Trump Announces New 25% Tariff on All Medium and Heavy-Duty Trucks
Oct. 6, 2025: BIS Expends Entity List with Entity 50 Percent Rule
Sep. 30, 2025: 232 Duties on Wood Products to be Implemented October 14
Sep. 25, 2025: U.S. Updates Tariff to Reflect EU Framework Agreement
Sep. 25, 2025: Up is Down and Bread is Pasta
Sep. 25, 2025: Commerce Launches 232 Investigations into Medical Supplies, Robotics, and Industrial Machinery
Sep. 24, 2025: CIT Vacates Forced Labor Determination as "Arbitrary and Capricious"
Sep. 24, 2025: CIT Affirms Classification of Fish Oil
Sep. 24, 2025: Withhold Release Order Issued for Giant Bicycles, Parts, and Accessories
Sep. 22, 2025: CBP Determines New Origin for Brake Hoses
Sep. 16, 2025: Steel and Aluminum Derivatives Open for *More* Additions (Somehow)
Sep. 16, 2025: USTR Opens Comments for 2026 USMCA Review
Sep. 16, 2025: Commerce Issues Interim Auto Parts 232 Inclusion Process Information
Sep. 15, 2025: Implementing Some Tariff-Related Elements of the U.S.-Japan Agreement
Sep. 12, 2025: U.S. Tariff Focus in the Limelight of Mounting Russia Sanctions Debate
Sep. 8, 2025: Another Friday Surprise: Reciprocal Tariff Coverage Modified
Sep. 5, 2025: U.S. Seeks Expedited Writ of Certiorari from SCOTUS on IEEPA Tariffs Case
Sep. 5, 2025: 500% Tariffs & Other Sanctions Looming on Russia And Its Trading Partners
Sep. 5, 2025: U.S.–Japan Trade Deal Clarified to 15% Inclusive, Retroactive Tariff
Sep. 5, 2025: Mexico Considering Increasing Non-FTA Tariffs
Sep. 2, 2025: BIS Ending Validated End User (VEU) Program
Aug. 29, 2025: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Rules Against IEEPA Tariffs
Aug. 21, 2025: US and EU confirm Trade Framework in Joint Statement
Aug. 19, 2025: High-Priority Sectors Added to UFLPA Enforcement
Aug. 18, 2025: CBP Touts (Some) Dumping Evasion Wins
Aug. 15, 2025: New AD/CVD Petitions on High Purity Dissolving Pulp from Brazil and Norway
Aug. 15, 2025: Commerce Adds 407 (!) HTS Codes to 232 Derivative Annexes Starting Monday
Aug. 14, 2025: U.S. Eyes Content Percentage for "Transshipment" Enforcement
Aug. 11, 2025: Trump Extends China Tariffs by 90 Days
Aug. 11, 2025: Creatively Ambiguous Japan Deal has Unstacked 15% Baseline
Aug. 8, 2025: Indications of Steel and Aluminum Quotas for EU in Trade Deal
Aug. 6, 2025: Additional 25% Tariffs on Indian Imports Announced
Aug. 1, 2025: New Round of Global Tariffs: A Round Up
Jul. 31, 2025: Copper 232 Coverage Issued Through Customs
Jul. 30, 2025: Gird Your Wires: Copper Tariffs Coming August 1st
Jul. 30, 2025: Brazil Gets Its Own IEEPA Tariffs
Jul. 30, 2025: De Minimis Window to Close August 29

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