(a) Sequential analysis. In determining whether a subsidy is de facto specific, the Secretary will examine the factors contained in section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act sequentially in order of their appearance. If a single factor warrants a finding of specificity, the Secretary will not undertake further analysis.
(b) Characteristics of a “group.” In determining whether a subsidy is being provided to a “group” of enterprises or industries within the meaning of section 751(5A)(D) of the Act, the Secretary is not required to determine whether there are shared characteristics among the enterprises or industries that are eligible for, or actually receive, a subsidy.
(c) Traded goods sector. In determining whether a subsidy is being provided to a “group” of enterprises or industries within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D) of the Act, the Secretary normally will consider enterprises that buy or sell goods internationally to comprise such a group.
(d) Disaster relief. The Secretary will not regard disaster relief including pandemic relief as being specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act if such relief constitutes general assistance available to anyone in the area affected by the disaster.
(e) Employment assistance. The Secretary will not regard employment assistance programs as being specific under section 771(5A)(D) if such assistance is provided solely with respect to employment of general categories of workers such as those based on age, gender, disability, long-term unemployment, veteran, rural or urban status and is available to everyone hired within those categories without any industry or enterprise restrictions.
[63 FR 65407, Nov. 25, 1998, as amended at 85 FR 6043, Feb. 4, 2020; 89 FR 101765, Dec. 16, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
· cites it 5× “18 Commerce “is not required to determine whether there are shared characteristics among the enterprises or industries that are eligible for, or actually receiving], a subsidy,” 19 C.F.R. § 351.502 (b), but only whether they are, in fact, “limited in number.”
Gov't of Quebec v. United States, 105 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
· cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 351.502 . “If a single factor warrants a finding of specificity, [Commerce] will not undertake further analysis.”
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 166 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
“19 C.F.R. § 351.502 (b). That being said, Commerce is under an obligation to compare the industries receiving the subsidy to the industry makeup of the country at issue as a whole.”
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
· cites it 2× “at 36, quoting, 19 C.F.R. § 351.502 (a) (1999).) Because Commerce’s specificity analysis of the VCA program focused solely on whether the Korean steel industry was the dominant user, Plaintiffs argue Commerce’s conclusion violates 19 U.”
Royal Thai Gov't v. United States, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
· cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 351.502 requires a sequential analysis of the foregoing factors.”
Royal Thai Gov't v. United States, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
“See 19 C.F.R. § 351.502 (a) (2006). Applying these principles to this case, Commerce must demonstrate that the one percent tariff rate used to calculate the benefit received by SSI under the duty exemption program is both de jure and de facto non-specific.”
AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
· cites it 2× “Second, the German Producers argue that the assistance provided by the Treuhandanstalt is noncountervailable because its activities to transition East Germany from a centrally-planned economy to a market economy qualifies as non-specific disaster relief under 19 C.F.R. § 351.502…”
Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 109 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
· cites it 5× “Commerce also modified existing regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.502 to add new subparagraph (c), “which explains that enterprises that buy or sell goods internationally .”
Gov't of Quebec v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2024).
· cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 351.502 . “If a single factor warrants a finding of specificity, [Commerce] will not undertake further analysis.”
POSCO v. United States, 2025 CIT 100 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
· cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 351.502 (b). The Federal Circuit, however, has stated that “the actual make-up of the eligible firms .”
AG der Dillinger-Hüttenwerke v. United States, 2004 CIT 9 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
· cites it 2× “Second, the German Producers argue that the assistance provided by the Treuhandanstalt is noncountervailable because its activities to transition East Germany from a centrally-planned economy to a market economy qualifies as non-specific disaster relief under 19 C.F.R. § 351.502…”
Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 2023 CIT 182 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
“ECF 49, at 30 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.502 (e)). The court disagrees because ASEMESA’s analysis turns on the statutory language, not the regulation.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.502(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.