19 C.F.R. § 351.503

Benefit

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

(a) Specific rules. In the case of a government program for which a specific rule for the measurement of a benefit is contained in this subpart E, the Secretary will measure the extent to which a financial contribution (or income or price support) confers a benefit as provided in that rule. For example, § 351.504(a) prescribes the specific rule for measurement of the benefit of grants.

(b) Other subsidies—(1) In general. For other government programs, the Secretary normally will consider a benefit to be conferred where a firm pays less for its inputs (e.g., money, a good, or a service) than it otherwise would pay in the absence of the government program, or receives more revenues than it otherwise would earn.

(2) Exception. Paragraph (b)(1) of this section is not intended to limit the ability of the Secretary to impose countervailing duties when the facts of a particular case establish that a financial contribution (or income or price support) has conferred a benefit, even if that benefit does not take the form of a reduction in input costs or an enhancement of revenues. When paragraph (b)(1) of this section is not applicable, the Secretary will determine whether a benefit is conferred by examining whether the alleged program or practice has common or similar elements to the four illustrative examples in sections 771(5)(E)(i) through (iv) of the Act.

(3) Contingent liabilities and assets. For the provision of a contingent liability or asset not otherwise addressed under a specific rule identified under paragraph (a) of this section, the Secretary will treat the balance or value of the contingent liability or assets as an interest-free provision of funds and will calculate the benefit using, where appropriate, either a short-term or long-term commercial interest rate.

(c) Distinction from effect of subsidy—(1) In general. In determining whether a benefit is conferred, the Secretary is not required to consider the effect or impact of the government action on the firm's performance, including its costs, prices, output, or whether the firm's behavior is otherwise altered.

(2) Subsidy provided to support compliance with a government-imposed mandate. When a government provides assistance to a firm to comply with a government regulation, requirement or obligation, the Secretary, in measuring the benefit from the subsidy, will not consider whether the firm incurred a cost in complying with the government-imposed regulation, requirement, or obligation.

(d) Varying financial contribution levels—(1) In general. Where a government program provides varying levels of financial contributions based on different eligibility criteria, and one or more of such levels is not specific within the meaning of § 351.502, a benefit is conferred to the extent that a firm receives a greater financial contribution than the financial contributions provided at a non-specific level under the program. The preceding sentence shall apply only to the extent the Secretary determines that the varying levels of financial contributions are set forth in a statute, decree, regulation, or other official act; that the levels are clearly delineated and identifiable; and that the firm would have been eligible for the non-specific level of contributions.

(2) Exception. Paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall not apply where the statute specifies a commercial test for determining the benefit.

(e) Tax consequences. In calculating the amount of a benefit, the Secretary will not consider the tax consequences of the benefit.

[63 FR 65407, Nov. 25, 1998, as amended at 89 FR 20840, Mar. 25, 2024; 89 FR 101765, Dec. 16, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Gov't of Sri Lanka v. United States, 2018 CIT 43 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gov't of Sri Lanka v. United States, 2018 CIT 43 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 3× “19 C.F.R. § 351.503 (c). See also 63 Fed.”

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 2024 CIT 55 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024). · cites it 7× “For the Final Results, Commerce found a benefit pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.503 (b)(2) and rejected Hyundai Steel’s argument that the agency should account for the burdens imposed by the K-ETS when considering this element of a subsidy.”

Gov't of Quebec v. United States, 105 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “In doing so, Commerce cited the regulatory directive under 19 C.F.R. § 351.503 (e): “[i]n calculating the amount of a benefit, [Commerce] will not consider the tax consequences of the benefit.”

RZBC Grp. Shareholding Co. v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1288 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 1677(6)(C); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.503 (c) (“In determining whether a benefit is conferred, the Secretary is not required to consider the effect of the government action on the firm’s performance, including its prices or output, or how the firm’s behavior otherwise is…”

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 2023 CIT 144 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). · cites it 5× “For the Preliminary Results, Commerce relied on 19 C.F.R. § 351.503 (b)(2) to find a benefit “to the extent that the recipient is relieved of the obligation to purchase Court No.”

Delverde, Srl & Delverde Usa, Inc. v. United States v. Borden, Inc., Hershey Foods Corp. & Gooch Foods, Inc., 202 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.503 (c) (1999). The issue here, however, is not whether Delverde was able to produce and sell pasta products at lower price, but whether it received a subsidy in the first place.”

Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd. v. United States, 2020 CIT 115 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). · cites it 2× “18-00006 Page 16 more revenues than it otherwise would earn’ standard in 19 C.F.R. § 351.503 .[12]” Pls.’ Br. 22, 24.”

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 2d 639 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). “See 19 C.F.R. §§ 351.503 , 351.505, 351.506, 351.”

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 2023 CIT 55 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). · cites it 4× “Nucor also contends that 19 C.F.R. § 351.503 (b)(1) requires Commerce to analyze whether a benefit was conferred when an individual firm pays less for its inputs than it would otherwise pay.”

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 2023 CIT 54 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). · cites it 4× “Nucor also contends that 19 C.F.R. § 351.503 (b)(1) requires Commerce to analyze whether a benefit was conferred when an individual firm pays less for its Court No.”

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 2023 CIT 64 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). · cites it 2× “13 Nucor also relies on 19 C.F.R. § 351.503 , Commerce’s regulation governing the benefit for programs not addressed elsewhere, which provides that Commerce “will consider a benefit to be conferred where a firm pays less for its inputs .”

Gov't of Quebec v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “In doing so, Commerce cited the regulatory directive under 19 C.F.R. § 351.503 (e): “[i]n calculating the amount of a benefit, [Commerce] will not consider the tax consequences of the benefit.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

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.