(a) Introduction. The Secretary issues an order when both the Secretary and the Commission (except in certain countervailing duty investigations) have made final affirmative determinations. The issuance of an order ends the investigative phase of a proceeding. Generally, upon the issuance of an order, importers no longer may post bonds as security for antidumping or countervailing duties, but instead must make a cash deposit of estimated duties. An order remains in effect until it is revoked. This section contains rules regarding the issuance of orders in general, as well as special rules for orders where the Commission has found a regional industry to exist.
(b) In general. Not later than seven days after receipt of notice of an affirmative final injury determination by the Commission under section 705(b) or section 735(b) of the Act, or, in a countervailing duty proceeding involving subject merchandise from a country not entitled to an injury test (see § 351.101(b)), simultaneously with publication of an affirmative final countervailing duty determination by the Secretary, the Secretary will publish in the Federal Register an “Antidumping Order” or “Countervailing Duty Order” that:
(1) Instructs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties or countervailing duties (whichever is applicable) on the subject merchandise, in accordance with the Secretary's instructions at the completion of each review requested under § 351.213(b) (administrative review), § 351.214(b) (new shipper review), or § 351.215(b) (expedited antidumping review), or if a review is not requested, in accordance with the Secretary's assessment instructions under § 351.212(c);
(2) Instructs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require a cash deposit of estimated antidumping or countervailing duties at the rates included in the Secretary's final determination; and
(3) Orders the suspension of liquidation ended for all entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption before the date of publication of the Commission's final determination, and instructs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to release the cash deposit or bond on those entries, if in its final determination, the Commission found a threat of material injury or material retardation of the establishment of an industry, unless the Commission in its final determination also found that, absent the suspension of liquidation ordered under section 703(d)(2) or section 733(d)(2) of the Act, it would have found material injury (see section 706(b) or section 736(b) of the Act).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case:
Belgium v. United States, 551 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Belgium v. United States, 551 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 4× “19 C.F.R. §§ 351.211 (b)(2), 351.212(a). Additionally, upon request and as frequently as once a year, the ITC will conduct a similar review of its finding of material injury.”
Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
“§ 1673d(c)(l)(B)(ii) (requiring the posting of a cash deposit, bond, or other security, as Commerce deems appropriate, in the final antidumping determination Commerce makes in the investigation); 19 C.F.R. § 351.211 (b)(2) (requiring cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties…”
Xerox Corp. v. United States, 289 F.3d 792 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“§ 1673e(a)(l) (1994); 19 C.F.R. § 351.211 (b)(1) (2001). Such findings of Customs as to “the classification and rate and amount of duties chargeable” are protestable to Customs under 19 U.”
Ugine & Alz Belgium, NV v. United States, 517 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
“§§ 1673e(a)(2), 1671e(a)(2); 19 C.F.R. § 351.211 (b)(1) (2007) (Commerce’s authority to issue instructions to Customs is limited to “subject merchandise”); Duferco Steel, Inc.”
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 947 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
· cites it 2× “§ 1673d(c)(2); see 19 C.F.R. § 351.211 . The antidumping duty order “directs customs officers to assess an antidumping duty equal to the amount” of the dumping margin within a certain period, “includes a de- scription of the subject merchandise,” and requires import- ers to…”
Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP v. United States, 2003 CIT 167 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
“19 C.F.R. §§ 351.211 -.212 (2003). In light of this statutory and regulatory scheme, it is reasonable for the Department to consider a countervailing duty to be “imposed” upon the issuance of the countervailing duty order.”
Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 2013 CIT 44 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
“Commerce has combined the two operative rules into one regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.211 (b)(3). Although the regulation is somewhat more accessible and readable than sections 1671e(b) and 1673e(b), it essentially just paraphrases them, meaning that the issue here does not…”
Parkdale Int'l v. United States, 429 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
“See 19 C.F.R. § 351.211 . A subsequently published antidumping order “requires the deposit of estimated antidumping duties pending liquidation of entries of merchandise at the same time as estimated normal customs duties on that merchandise are deposited.”
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.