(a) Introduction. During the course of a countervailing duty investigation or review, Department officials may discover or receive notice of a practice that appears to provide a countervailable subsidy. This section explains when the Secretary will examine such a practice.
(b) Inclusion in proceeding. If during a countervailing duty investigation or a countervailing duty administrative review the Secretary discovers a practice that appears to provide a countervailable subsidy with respect to the subject merchandise and the practice was not alleged or examined in the proceeding, or if, pursuant to section 775 of the Act, the Secretary receives notice from the United States Trade Representative that a subsidy or subsidy program is in violation of Article 8 of the Subsidies Agreement, the Secretary will examine the practice, subsidy, or subsidy program if the Secretary concludes that sufficient time remains before the scheduled date for the final determination or final results of review.
(c) Deferral of examination. If the Secretary concludes that insufficient time remains before the scheduled date for the final determination or final results of review to examine the practice, subsidy, or subsidy program described in paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary will:
(1) During an investigation, allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition without prejudice and resubmit it with an allegation with regard to the newly discovered practice, subsidy, or subsidy program; or
(2) During an investigation or review, defer consideration of the newly discovered practice, subsidy, or subsidy program until a subsequent administrative review, if any.
(d) Notice. The Secretary will notify the parties to the proceeding of any practice the Secretary discovers, or any subsidy or subsidy program with respect to which the Secretary receives notice from the United States Trade Representative, and whether or not it will be included in the then ongoing proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
· cites it 6× “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.311 (b) (2014). Moreover, the statute provides a broad directive to Commerce to investigate whenever the agency deems that a formal investigation is warranted.”
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 112 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
· cites it 4× “then the administering authority— (1) shall include the practice, subsidy, or subsidy program in the proceeding if the practice, subsidy, or subsidy program appears to be a countervailable subsidy with respect to the merchandise which is the subject of the proceeding In turn, 19…”
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, 2013 CIT 66 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
· cites it 4× “19 C.F.R. § 351.311 (c)(2) allows Commerce to “defer consideration of [a] newly discovered practice, subsidy, or subsidy program until a subsequent administrative review, if any.”
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 21 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).
· cites it 2× “More specifically, the court could not determine whether Commerce had deferred making a final determination under 19 C.F.R. § 351.311 or whether it had issued a final determination *1272 on the alleged subsidy providing steam coal for LTAR.”
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 2d 639 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, 19 C.F.R. § 351.311 places an independent obligation on Commerce to investigate newly discovered practices that reasonably appear to be eountervailable if sufficient time remains before the scheduled date of the final determination.”
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 2001 CIT 87 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
· cites it 6× “§ 1677d and 19 C.F.R. § 351.311 and explained ‘why this evidence would not have triggered inclusion of this potential subsidy in [its] investigation.”
Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. v. United States, 2019 CIT 122 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).
· cites it 2× “§ 1677d; see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.311 . The regulations specify that Commerce will examine such a practice if it “concludes that sufficient time remains” before the final determination.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.311(c) — 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.