C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER III—INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › PART 351—ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES › Subpart D—Calculation of Export Price, Constructed Export Price, Fair Value, and Normal Value

19 C.F.R. § 351.408

Calculation of normal value of merchandise from nonmarket economy countries

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

(a) Introduction. In identifying dumping from a nonmarket economy country, the Secretary normally will calculate normal value by valuing the nonmarket economy producers' factors of production in a market economy country. (See section 773(c) of the Act.) This section clarifies when and how this special methodology for nonmarket economies will be applied.

(b) Selecting surrogate countries—(1) Determining comparable economies. The Secretary is directed by sections 773(c)(2)(B) and 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act to select surrogate countries which are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country at issue.

(i) Measuring economic comparability. In determining whether market economy countries are at a level of economic development comparable to the nonmarket economy at issue, the Secretary will place primary emphasis on per capita gross domestic product (GDP).

(ii) Additional considerations in determining economic comparability. When the Secretary determines that such an analysis is warranted, the Secretary may consider additional factors in determining whether certain market economy countries are at a level of economic development comparable to the nonmarket economy at issue. If the Secretary considers additional factors in its analysis, the Secretary will identify those factors and provide the reason it considered those factors along with the list of comparable market economies issued under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.

(iii) Annual listing of comparable economies. On an annual basis, the Secretary will determine market economies comparable to individual nonmarket economies and list those market economies on the Secretary's website.

(2) Determining significant producers of comparable merchandise. In selecting a surrogate country from those countries which the Secretary determines are economically comparable, the Secretary will consider, in accordance with section 773(c)(2)(A) and (c)(4)(B) of the Act, those countries that are significant producers of merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise.

(3) Selecting between surrogate countries which are economically comparable and significant producers of comparable merchandise. If more than one economically comparable country produces comparable merchandise, the Secretary will consider the totality of the information on the record in selecting a surrogate country. Among the criteria the Secretary may consider in selecting a surrogate country are the availability, accessibility, and quality of data from those countries and the similarity of products manufactured in the potential surrogate countries in comparison to the subject merchandise.

(c) Valuation of Factors of Production. For purposes of valuing the factors of production, general expenses, profit, and the cost of containers, coverings, and other expenses (referred to collectively as “factors”) under section 773(c)(1) of the Act the following rules will apply:

(1) Information used to value factors. The Secretary normally will use publicly available information to value factors. However, where a factor is produced in one or more market economy countries, purchased from one or more market economy suppliers and paid for in market economy currency, the Secretary normally will use the price(s) paid to the market economy supplier(s) if substantially all of the total volume of the factor is purchased from the market economy supplier(s). For purposes of this provision, the Secretary defines the term “substantially all” to be 85 percent or more of the total volume purchased of the factor used in the production of subject merchandise. In those instances where less than substantially all of the total volume of the factor is produced in one or more market economy countries and purchased from one or more market economy suppliers, the Secretary normally will weight-average the actual price(s) paid for the market economy portion and the surrogate value for the nonmarket economy portion by their respective quantities.

(2) Valuation in a single country. The Secretary normally will value all factors in a single surrogate country.

(3) Manufacturing overhead, general expenses, and profit. For manufacturing overhead, general expenses, and profit, the Secretary normally will use non-proprietary information gathered from producers of identical or comparable merchandise in the surrogate country.

(d) A determination that certain surrogate value information is not otherwise appropriate—(1) In general. Notwithstanding the factors considered under paragraph (c) of this section, the Secretary may disregard a proposed market economy country value for consideration as a surrogate value if the Secretary determines that evidence on the record reflects that the use of such a value would be inappropriate.

(i) In accordance with section 773(c)(5), the Secretary may disregard a proposed surrogate value if the Secretary determines that the value is derived from a country that provides broadly available export subsidies, if particular instances of subsidization occurred with respect to that proposed surrogate value, or if that proposed surrogate value was subject to an antidumping order.

(ii) In addition, the Secretary may disregard a proposed surrogate value if the Secretary determines based on record evidence that the value is derived from a facility, party, industry, intra-country region or a country with weak, ineffective, or nonexistent property (including intellectual property), human rights, labor, or environmental protections.

(2) Requirements to disregard a proposed surrogate value based on weak, ineffective, or nonexistent protections. For purposes of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, the Secretary will only consider disregarding a proposed market economy country value as a surrogate value of production if the Secretary determines the following:

(i) The proposed surrogate value at issue is for a significant input or labor;

(ii) The proposed surrogate value is derived from one country or an average of values from a limited number of countries; and

(iii) The information on the record supports a claim that the identified weak, ineffective, or nonexistent property (including intellectual property), human rights, labor, or environmental protections undermine the appropriateness of using that value as a surrogate value.

(3) The use of a surrogate value located in a country which is not at a level of economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy. If the Secretary determines, pursuant to this section, after reviewing all proposed values on the record derived from market economy countries which are at a level of economic development comparable to the nonmarket economy, that no such proposed value is appropriate to value a specific factor of production, the Secretary may use a value on the record derived from a market economy country which is not at a level of economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country as a surrogate to value that specific factor of production.

(4) The use of a surrogate value not located in a country which is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. If the Secretary determines, pursuant to this section, after reviewing all proposed surrogate values on the record derived from market economy countries which are significant producers of merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise, that no such proposed value is appropriate to value a specific factor of production, the Secretary may use a value on the record derived from a market economy country which is not a significant producer of merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise as a surrogate to value that specific factor of production.

[62 FR 27379, May 19, 1997, as amended at 78 FR 46804, Aug. 2, 2013; 88 FR 67080, Sept. 29, 2023; 89 FR 20837, Mar. 25, 2024; 89 FR 101765, Dec. 16, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 256 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Luoyang Bearing Factory v. United States, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Luoyang Bearing Factory v. United States, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). · cites it 27× “at 19, Luoyang asserts that: (1) 19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(1) (1998) does not “limit the use of NME import prices from market economy countries to those paid by the producer,” Luoyang’s Reply at 4; (2) both Olympia 1999, 23 CIT at 83, 36 F.”
Allied Pac. Food (Dalian) Co. v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). · cites it 26× “Rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that the Department’s regression analysis methodology, which the Department applied under its regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(3) (2004), is contrary to law, the Remand Redetermination concludes that the regulation and methodology are consistent…”
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 10× “19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(2). One factor of production, labor, is treated differently from the other factors.”
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 8× “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(1) & (2) 4 (emphases added).”
Allied Pac. Food (Dalian) Co. Ltd. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 12× “Plaintiffs question the validity of the Department’s regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(3) (2004), under which Commerce is required to “use regression-based wage rates reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national income in market economy countries.”
Jacobi Carbons AB & Jacobi Carbons, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 39 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). · cites it 7× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(2) (excepting labor).”
Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co. v. United States, 822 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(2). The process of choosing a market economy country to value the factors of production is known as surrogate country selection.”
Luoyang Bearing Corp. v. United States, 347 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 9× “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(1) (1999). 2. Factual Background In the Preliminary Results, Commerce valued the steel used to produce the subject TRBs by using the actual import prices paid by CMC.”
Zhejiang Dunan Hetian Metal Co., Ltd. v. United States, 652 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “al, DunAn raises three issues: whether (1) the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) erred in calculating the surrogate value for brass bar by including shipments from Japan, France, and the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”); (2) Commerce applied an improper adverse…”
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 6× “Because Commerce’s regulations specify that it will normally value all factors of production, except for labor, by using data from a single surrogate country, 19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(2), 7 Commerce’s letter was preliminary to its choice from the list of five.”
Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 35 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 5× “Citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(2), defendant argues that because "Commerce determined it had usable and reliable data" from its primary surrogate country, i.”
China Nat'l Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 6× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(1). However, in this case, both in the final stage of the twelfth administrative review and in the entire thirteenth administrative review, Commerce declined to use the actual prices CMC paid to the supplier for its steel because it claimed it had a…”
Show all 256 citing cases →
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(b) — 2 cases
Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2013 CIT 24 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 2017 CIT 76 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c) — 2 cases
Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. United States, 636 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).
Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, 2025 CIT 39 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1) — 4 cases
Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2023 CIT 109 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2015 CIT 37 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
Baoding Mantong Fine Chem. Co. v. United States, 2017 CIT 169 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
Yantai Oriental Juice Co. v. United States, 2002 CIT 56 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2) — 2 cases
Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 115 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).
Baoding Mantong Fine Chem. Co. v. United States, 2017 CIT 169 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(4) — 3 cases
Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co. v. United States, 2017 CIT 44 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
US Magnesium LLC v. United States, 72 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 38 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).
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.