(a) Introduction. Because the Act does not specify the precise period of time that the Secretary should examine in an antidumping or countervailing duty investigation, this section sets forth rules regarding the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, this section covers exclusion requests in countervailing duty investigations conducted on an aggregate basis.
(b) Period of investigation—(1) Antidumping investigation. In an antidumping investigation, the Secretary normally will examine merchandise sold during the four most recently completed fiscal quarters (or, in an investigation involving merchandise imported from a nonmarket economy country, the two most recently completed fiscal quarters) as of the month preceding the month in which the petition was filed or in which the Secretary self-initiated an investigation. However, the Secretary may examine merchandise sold during any additional or alternate period that the Secretary concludes is appropriate.
(2) Countervailing duty investigation. In a countervailing duty investigation, the Secretary normally will rely on information pertaining to the most recently completed fiscal year for the government and exporters or producers in question. If the exporters or producers have different fiscal years, the Secretary normally will rely on information pertaining to the most recently completed calendar year. If the investigation is conducted on an aggregate basis under section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the Secretary normally will rely on information pertaining to the most recently completed fiscal year for the government in question. However, the Secretary may rely on information for any additional or alternate period that the Secretary concludes is appropriate.
(c) Limiting exporters or producers examined and voluntary respondents. Once the Secretary has initiated the antidumping or countervailing duty investigation, the Secretary may determine that it is not practicable to examine each known exporter or producer. In accordance with § 351.109(c), the Secretary may select a limited number of exporters or producers to examine. Furthermore, in accordance with section 782(a) of the Act and § 351.109(h), the Secretary may determine to examine voluntary respondents.
(d) Requests for exclusions from countervailing duty orders based on investigations conducted on an aggregate basis. When the Secretary conducts a countervailing duty investigation on an aggregate basis under section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the Secretary will consider and investigate requests for exclusion to the extent practicable. An exporter or producer that desires exclusion from an order must submit:
(1) A certification by the exporter or producer that it received zero or de minimis net countervailable subsidies during the period of investigation;
(2) If the exporter or producer received a countervailable subsidy, calculations demonstrating that the amount of net countervailable subsidies received was de minimis during the period of investigation;
(3) If the exporter is not the producer of subject merchandise, certifications from the suppliers and producers of the subject merchandise that those persons received zero or de minimis net countervailable subsidies during the period of investigation; and
(4) A certification from the government of the affected country that the government did not provide the exporter (or the exporter's supplier) or producer with more than de minimis net countervailable subsidies during the period of investigation.
[62 FR 27379, May 19, 1997, as amended at 73 FR 3643, Jan. 22, 2008; 88 FR 67077, Sept. 29, 2023; 89 FR 101762, Dec. 16, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
MacLean-fogg Co. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
· cites it 12× “Next, Commerce excluded the individual rates assigned to the voluntary respondents, relying on 19 C.F.R. § 351.204 (d)(3), which expressly requires exclusion MACLEAN-FOGG COMPANY v.”
Maclean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 47 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
· cites it 8× “In doing so, Commerce relied on 19 C.F.R. § 351.204 (d)(3) which permits Commerce to exclude any rates calculated for voluntary respondents when calculating the all-others rate.”
Kaiyuan Grp. Corp. v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
· cites it 5× “19 C.F.R. § 351.204 (e)(3) (2000) provides that “[i]n *1306 the ease of an exporter that is not the producer of subject merchandise, the Secretary normally will limit an exclusion of the exporter to subject merchandise of those producers that supplied the exporter during the…”
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 324 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
· cites it 4× “Discussion The portion of this action now before the court involves Commerce's exclusion regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.204 (e)(1), adopted in 1997 as part of a comprehensive regulatory update following the statutory amendments made by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.”
MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1349 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
· cites it 7× “19 But the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, 20 invalidated 19 C.F.R. § 351.204 (d)(3), and ordered this court to remand Commerce’s all-others rate calculation, requiring the agency to include the two voluntary respondents’ rates when determining the all-others rate in…”
MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 146 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
· cites it 3× “2d at 1371; see 19 C.F.R. § 351.204 (d)(3). Plaintiffs sought review, claiming that the statutory language in Section 1671d unambiguously called for the all-others rate to be calculated using only individually investigated respondents, which in this case, Plaintiffs claimed,…”
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 848 F.3d 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
“See 19 C.F.R. § 351.204 (e)(1) (excluding from final determination “any exporter or producer for which the Secretary determines an individual weighted-average dumping margin .”
Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).
“The questionnaire answers are critical as respond- ents have the burden of creating an accurate admini- 9 A review may also include “voluntary respondents,” which refers to interested parties who apply for that treatment pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.204 (d). Commerce must estab-…”
MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 2012 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
· cites it 2× “When calculating the “all-others” rate for the remaining companies, Commerce excluded the voluntary respondents’ rates from its calculations in accordance with its regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.204 (d)(3). Maclean-Fogg I, 36 CIT at —, 836 F.”
Tung Fong Indust. Co., Inc. v. United States, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
· cites it 4× “1677f-l(c); 19 C.F.R. § 351.204 (c)(1). Where it would be impracticable for the Commerce Department to individually investigate all known exporters and producers, a subset of the exporters and producers may be selected for individual investigation.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.204(c)(2) — 2 cases
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.204(d) — 1 case
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.204(d)(2) — 2 cases
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.204(e)(1) — 1 case
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 324 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
“Discussion The portion of this action now before the court involves Commerce's exclusion regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.204 (e)(1), adopted in 1997 as part of a comprehensive regulatory update following the statutory amendments made by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.204(e)(3)(i) — 1 case
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.