C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER III—INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › PART 351—ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES › Subpart E—Identification and Measurement of Countervailable Subsidies

19 C.F.R. § 351.524

Allocation of benefit to a particular time period

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

Unless otherwise specified in §§ 351.504-351.523, the Secretary will allocate benefits to a particular time period in accordance with this section.

(a) Recurring benefits. The Secretary will allocate (expense) a recurring benefit to the year in which the benefit is received.

(b) Non-recurring benefits—(1) In general. The Secretary will normally allocate a non-recurring benefit to a firm over the number of years corresponding to the average useful life (“AUL”) of renewable physical assets as defined in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

(2) Exception. The Secretary will normally allocate (expense) non-recurring benefits provided under a particular subsidy program to the year in which the benefits are received if the total amount approved under the subsidy program is less than 0.5 percent of relevant sales (e.g., total sales, export sales, the sales of a particular product, or the sales to a particular market) of the firm in question during the year in which the subsidy was approved.

(c) “Recurring” versus “non-recurring” benefits—(1) Non-binding iIlustrative lists of recurring and non-recurring benefits. The Secretary normally will treat the following types of subsidies as providing recurring benefits: Direct tax exemptions and deductions; exemptions and excessive rebates of indirect taxes or import duties; provision of goods and services for less than adequate remuneration; price support payments; discounts on electricity, water, and other utilities; freight subsidies; export promotion assistance; early retirement payments; worker assistance; worker training; wage subsidies; and upstream subsidies. The Secretary normally will treat the following types of subsidies as providing non-recurring benefits: equity infusions, grants, plant closure assistance, debt forgiveness, coverage for operating losses, debt-to-equity conversions, provision of non-general infrastructure, and provision of plant and equipment.

(2) The test for determining whether a benefit is recurring or non-recurring. If a subsidy is not on the illustrative lists, or is not addressed elsewhere in these regulations, or if a party claims that a subsidy on the recurring list should be treated as non-recurring or a subsidy on the non-recurring list should be treated as recurring, the Secretary will consider the following criteria in determining whether the benefits from the subsidy should be considered recurring or non-recurring:

(i) Whether the subsidy is exceptional in the sense that the recipient cannot expect to receive additional subsidies under the same program on an ongoing basis from year to year;

(ii) Whether the subsidy required or received the government's express authorization or approval (i.e., receipt of benefits is not automatic), or

(iii) Whether the subsidy was provided for, or tied to, the capital structure or capital assets of the firm.

(d) Process for allocating non-recurring benefits over time—(1) In general. For purposes of allocating a non-recurring benefit over time and determining the annual benefit amount that should be assigned to a particular year, the Secretary will use the following formula:

Where: Ak = the amount of the benefit allocated to year k, y = the face value of the subsidy, n = the AUL (see paragraph (d)(2) of this section), d = the discount rate (see paragraph (d)(3) of this section), and k = the year of allocation, where the year of receipt = 1 and 1 ≤k ≤n.

(2) AUL—(i) In general. The Secretary will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the AUL of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (“IRS”) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (Rev. Proc. 77-10, 1977-1, C.B. 548 (RR-38)), as updated by the Department of Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that the IRS tables do not reasonably reflect the company-specific AUL or the country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation, subject to the requirement, in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, that the difference between the company-specific AUL or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation and the AUL in the IRS tables is significant. If this is the case, the Secretary will use company-specific or country-wide AULs to allocate non-recurring benefits over time (see paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section).

(ii) Definition of “significant.” For purposes of this paragraph (d), significant means that a party has demonstrated that the company-specific AUL or country-wide AUL for the industry differs from AUL in the IRS tables by one year or more.

(iii) Calculation of a company-specific or country-wide AUL. A calculation of a company-specific AUL will not be accepted by the Secretary unless it satisfies the following requirements: the company must base its depreciation on an estimate of the actual useful lives of assets and it must use straight-line depreciation or demonstrate that its calculation is not distorted through irregular or uneven additions to the pool of fixed assets. A company-specific AUL is calculated by dividing the aggregate of the annual average gross book values of the firm's depreciable productive fixed assets by the firm's aggregated annual charge to accumulated depreciation, for a period considered appropriate by the Secretary, subject to appropriate normalizing adjustments. A country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation will not be accepted by the Secretary unless the respondent government demonstrates that it has a system in place to calculate AULs for its industries, and that this system provides a reliable representation of AUL.

(iv) Exception. Under certain extraordinary circumstances, the Secretary may consider whether an allocation period other than AUL is appropriate or whether the benefit stream begins at a date other than the date the subsidy was bestowed.

(3) Selection of a discount rate. (i) In general. The Secretary will select a discount rate based upon data for the year in which the government agreed to provide the subsidy. The Secretary will use as a discount rate the following, in order of preference:

(A) The cost of long-term, fixed-rate loans of the firm in question, excluding any loans that the Secretary has determined to be countervailable subsidies;

(B) The average cost of long-term, fixed-rate loans in the country in question; or

(C) A rate that the Secretary considers to be most appropriate.

(ii) Exception for uncreditworthy firms. In the case of a firm considered by the Secretary to be uncreditworthy (see § 351.505(a)(4)), the Secretary will use as a discount rate the interest rate described in § 351.505(a)(3)(iii).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). · cites it 5× “In the Final Determination, after finding the grants given under these programs countervaila-ble, Commerce deemed the benefits received “nonrecurring,” and therefore allo-cable over fifteen years in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.524 . Final Determination at 37,316.”
Posco v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 351.524 (a). Commerce allocates non-recurring benefits "over the number of years corresponding to the [AUL] of renewable physical assets" used in the production of the subject merchandise.”
Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, & U.S. Magnesium LLC, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “19 C.F.R. § 351.524 (b)(l)-(d). Although countervailing duties must be “equal to” countervailing subsidies, the two concepts are not functionally interchangeable.”
Magnola Metallurgy, Inc. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “19 C.F.R. § 351.524 (d)(2)©. Because Commerce determined that Mag-nola’s 1998 and 2000 MTM program reimbursements were non-recurring subsidies as defined in 19 C.”
KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 2024 CIT 38 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024). · cites it 9× “505 (a)(3)(iii); 19 C.F.R. § 351.524 (d). Familiarity with the formula, as transcribed in the prior Opinion,2 is presumed.”
Fabrique De Fer De Charleroi, SA v. United States, 166 F. Supp. 2d 593 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). · cites it 4× “This longstanding policy was subsequently codified at 19 C.F.R. § 351.524 (1999). The GIA and subsequent regulation make clear that Commerce will expense grants that are less than 0.”
Özdemir Boru San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. United States, 2017 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “19 C.F.R. § 351.524 (a) (2015) (“[Commerce] will allocate (expense) a recurring benefit to the year in which the benefit is received.”
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. § 351.524 (1999). Second, Commerce assumes that when a company sells “productive assets” during “the average useful life,” a pro rata portion of that subsidy “passes through” to the purchaser at the time of the sale.”
TMK IPSCO v. United States, 2017 CIT 54 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “19 C.F.R. § 351.524 (a). In other words, only recurring benefits bestowed during the POI could possibly be eountervailable.”
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 112 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.524 (b) (2000) (codifying the Department’s practice of allocating non-recurring benefits).”
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “5 percent test” pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.524 (b)(2), which provides that Commerce divide the amount of the subsidy approved under a given subsidy program in a particular year by the relevant sales (e.”
Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 535 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “Micron raises this issue because, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.524 (b)(1), the benefit of the equity infusion is allocated over five years, which means that according to Commerce's determination the increased duty rate will run from 2002 to 2006.”
Show all 21 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.