C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER III—INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › PART 351—ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES › Subpart A—Scope, Definitions, the Record of Proceedings, Cash Deposits, Nonmarket Economy Antidumping Rates, All-Others Rate, and Respondent Selection

19 C.F.R. § 351.106

De minimis net countervailable subsidies and weighted-average dumping margins disregarded

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Introduction. Prior to the enactment of the URAA, the Department had a well-established and judicially sanctioned practice of disregarding net countervailable subsidies or weighted-average dumping margins that were de minimis. The URAA codified in the Act the particular de minimis standards to be used in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. This section discussed the application of the de minimis standards in antidumping or countervailing duty proceedings.

(b) Investigations—(1) In general. In making a preliminary or final antidumping or countervailing duty determination in an investigation (see sections 703(b), 733(b), 705(a), and 735(a) of the Act), the Secretary will apply the de minimis standard set forth in section 703(b)(4) or section 733(b)(3) of the Act (whichever is applicable).

(2) Transition rule. (i) If:

(A) The Secretary resumes an investigation that has been suspended (see section 704(i)(1)(B) or section 734(i)(1)(B) of the Act); and

(B) The investigation was initiated before January 1, 1995, then

(ii) The Secretary will apply the de minimis standard in effect at the time that the investigation was initiated.

(c) Reviews and other determinations—(1) In general. In making any determination other than a preliminary or final antidumping or countervailing duty determination in an investigation (see paragraph (b) of this section), the Secretary will treat as de minimis any weighted-average dumping margin or countervailable subsidy rate that is less than 0.5 percent ad valorem, or the equivalent specific rate.

(2) Assessment of antidumping duties. The Secretary will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries of subject merchandise during the relevant period of review made by any person for which the Secretary calculates an assessment rate under § 351.212(b)(1) that is less than 0.5 percent ad valorem, or the equivalent specific rate.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2002–2023 · leading case: Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “19 C.F.R. § 351.106 (c)(1) — (2). 6 As explained by the CIT, “the agency does not impose duties at all if it finds that an exporter’s rate is less than or equal to 0.”
Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “19 C.F.R. § 351.106 (c). Here, Commerce assigned Jacobi arid’ CCT margins of- $0.”
Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. v. United States, 519 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “00%, thus de minim-is under 19 C.F.R. § 351.106 (c)(2). Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 Fed.”
Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.106 (c). In other words, Commerce disregards anti-dumping margins that are less than 0.”
Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “at 46,480–81 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.106 (c)(2)). Thus, under Commerce’s preliminary determination, Hung Vuong’s frozen fish fil- lets would have been subject to no antidumping duty at all, though they would still have been subject to normal import duties, if any, that would…”
Union Steel v. United States, 2012 CIT 24 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). “, 19 C.F.R. § 351.106 (c) (providing in reviews for a 0.”
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.106 (2003) (providing that a de minimis dumping margin is one below 0.”
AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.106 (b). Section 351.106(c) specifies that ”[i]n making any determination other than a preliminary or final antidumping or countervailing duty determination in an investigation .”
Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 37 F. Supp. 3d 1286 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). “5 percent in 19 C.F.R. § 351.106 (c)(2), the de minimis threshold represents the minimum weighted-average dumping margin needed to levy antidumping duties in reviews.”
Yieh Phui Enter. Co. v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.106 . A 2 percent threshold applies to investigations.”
Timken Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 47 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.106 (c). Moreover, at oral argument, the government noted that NTN’s non-de minimis rate of 6.”
Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 2018 CIT 73 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “" 19 C.F.R. § 351.106 (c). 9 The SAA provides the following guidance on the method Commerce may use when the exception to the general rule applies: [Title 19 U.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.