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. § 351.525

Calculation of ad valorem subsidy rate and attribution of subsidy to a product

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

(a) Calculation of ad valorem subsidy rate. The Secretary will calculate an ad valorem subsidy rate by dividing the amount of the benefit allocated to the period of investigation or review by the sales value during the same period of the product or products to which the Secretary attributes the subsidy under paragraph (b) of this section. Normally, the Secretary will determine the sales value of a product on an f.o.b. (port) basis (if the product is exported) or on an f.o.b. (factory) basis (if the product is sold for domestic consumption). However, if the Secretary determines that countervailable subsidies are provided with respect to the movement of a product from the port or factory to the place of destination (e.g., freight or insurance costs are subsidized), the Secretary may make appropriate adjustments to the sales value used in the denominator.

(b) Attribution of subsidies—(1) In general. In attributing a subsidy to one or more products, the Secretary will apply the rules set forth in paragraphs (b)(2) through (9) of this section. The Secretary may determine to limit the number of cross-owned corporations examined under this section based on record information and resource availability.

(2) Export subsidies. The Secretary will normally attribute an export subsidy only to products exported by a firm.

(3) Domestic subsidies. The Secretary will normally attribute a domestic subsidy to all products sold by a firm, including products that are exported.

(4) Subsidies tied to a particular market. If a subsidy is tied to sales to a particular market, the Secretary will attribute the subsidy only to products sold by the firm to that market.

(5) Subsidies tied to a particular product—(i) In general. If a subsidy is tied to the production or sale of a particular product, the Secretary will attribute the subsidy only to that product.

(ii) Exception. If a subsidy is tied to production of an input product, then the Secretary will attribute the subsidy to both the input and downstream products produced by a corporation.

(6) Corporations with cross-ownership—(i) In general. The Secretary normally will attribute a subsidy to the products produced by the corporation that received the subsidy.

(ii) Corporations producing the same product. If two (or more) corporations with cross-ownership produce the subject merchandise, the Secretary will attribute the subsidies received by either or both corporations to the products produced by both corporations.

(iii) Holding or parent companies. If the firm that received a subsidy is a holding company, including a parent company with its own business operations, the Secretary will attribute the subsidy to the consolidated sales of the holding company and its subsidiaries.

(iv) Input producer—(A) In general. If there is cross-ownership between an input producer that supplies, either directly or indirectly, a downstream producer and production of the input product is primarily dedicated to production of the downstream products, the Secretary will attribute subsidies received by the input producer to the combined sales of the input and downstream products produced by both corporations (excluding the sales between the two corporations).

(B) Primarily dedicated. In determining whether the input product is primarily dedicated to production of the downstream product, the Secretary will determine, as a threshold matter, whether the input could be used in the production of a downstream product including subject merchandise. The Secretary may also consider the following factors, which are not in hierarchical order: whether the input is a link in the overall production chain; whether the input provider's business activities are focused on providing the input to the downstream producer; whether the input is a common input used in the production of a wide variety of products and industries; whether the downstream producers in the overall production chain are the primary users of the inputs produced by the input producer; whether the inputs produced by the input producer are primarily reserved for use by the downstream producer until the downstream producer's needs are met; whether the input producer is dependent on the downstream producers for the purchases of the input product; whether the downstream producers are dependent on the input producer for their supply of the input; the coordination, nature and extent of business activities between the input producer and the downstream producers whether directly between the input producer and the downstream producers or indirectly through other cross-owned corporations; and any other factor deemed relevant by the Secretary based upon the case-specific facts.

(v) Providers of utility products. If there is cross-ownership between a corporation providing electricity, natural gas or other similar utility product and a producer of subject merchandise, the Secretary will attribute subsidies received by that provider to the combined sales of that provider and the sales of products sold by the producer of subject merchandise if at least one of the following two conditions are met:

(A) A substantial percentage, normally defined as 25 percent or more, of the production of the cross-owned utility provider is provided to the producer of subject merchandise, or

(B) The producer of subject merchandise purchases a substantial percentage, normally defined as 25 percent or more, of its electricity, natural gas, or other similar utility product from the cross-owned provider.

(vi) Transfer of subsidy between corporations with cross-ownership. If a cross-owned corporation received a subsidy and transferred the subsidy to a producer of subject merchandise, the Secretary will only attribute the subsidy to products produced by the recipient of the transferred subsidy. When the cross-owned corporation that transferred the subsidy could fall under two or more of the paragraphs under paragraph (b)(6) of this section the transferred subsidy will be attributed solely under this paragraph.

(vii) Cross-ownership defined. Cross-ownership exists between two or more corporations when one corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially the same ways it can use its own assets. Normally, this standard will be met when there is a majority voting ownership interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two (or more) corporations.

(7) Multinational firms. If the firm that received a subsidy has production facilities in two or more countries, the Secretary will attribute the subsidy to products produced by the firm within the country of the government that granted the subsidy. However, if it is demonstrated that the subsidy was tied to more than domestic production, the Secretary will attribute the subsidy to multinational production.

(8) Attribution of subsidies to plants or factories. The Secretary will not tie or attribute a subsidy on a plant- or factory-specific basis.

(9) General standard for finding tying. A subsidy will normally be determined to be tied to a product or market when the authority providing the subsidy was made aware of, or otherwise had knowledge of, the intended use of the subsidy and acknowledged that intended use of the subsidy prior to, or concurrent with, the bestowal of the subsidy.

(c) Trading companies—(1) In general. Benefits from subsidies provided to a trading company that exports subject merchandise shall be cumulated with benefits from subsidies provided to the firm which is producing subject merchandise that is sold through the trading company, regardless of whether the trading company and the producing firm are affiliated.

(2) The individually examined respondent exports through trading company. To cumulate subsidies when the trading company is not individually examined as a respondent, the Secretary will pro-rate the subsidy rate calculated for the trading company by using the ratio of the producer's total exports of subject merchandise to the United States sold through the trading company divided by producer's total exports of subject merchandise to the United States and add the resultant rate onto the producer's calculated subsidy rate.

(3) The individually examined respondent is a trading company. To cumulate subsidies when the trading company is individually examined as a respondent, the Secretary will pro-rate the subsidy rate calculated for the producer(s) by the ratio of the producer's sales of subject merchandise to the United States purchased or sourced by the trading company to total sales to the United States of subject merchandise from all selected producers sourced by the respondent trading company and add the resultant rates to the trading company's calculated subsidy rate.

(d) Ad valorem subsidy rate in countries with high inflation. For countries experiencing an inflation rate greater than 25 percent per annum during the relevant period, the Secretary will normally adjust the benefit amount (numerator) and the sales data (denominator) to account for the rate of inflation during the relevant period of investigation or review in calculating the ad valorem subsidy rate.

[63 FR 65407, Nov. 25, 1998, as amended at 89 FR 20841, Mar. 25, 2024; 89 FR 101767, Dec. 16, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: TMK IPSCO v. United States, 2017 CIT 54 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
TMK IPSCO v. United States, 2017 CIT 54 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). · cites it 19× “The court held that 19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b)(6)(iii) (2009) 3 does not give Commerce authority to attribute subsidies received by a subsidiary to the consolidated sales of the parent company’s other subsidiaries.”
Posco v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 6× “POSCO answered "that it believes it has provided responses for all cross-owned companies that fall within 19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b)(6)." Id. Commerce also asked POSCO about subsidies to companies located in free economic zones ("FEZ").”
Essar Steel Ltd. v. United States, 678 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “" 19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b)(5)(i). However, no evidence exists to support "tying" the benefits under the SEZ Act only to particular products.”
Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. United States, 2023 CIT 09 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). · cites it 13× “In response to defendant- intervenor’s motion, the court allowed additional briefing on the proper interpretation of a provision in the Department’s regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b)(6)(iv), which the parties submitted on January 20, 2023.”
Yama Ribbons & Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2012 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). · cites it 10× “19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b)(6)(i). While there are exceptions that allow Commerce to attribute the subsidies to foreign cross-owned subsidiaries and affiliates, 8 Commerce must base its decisions on the record before it in each individual investigation.”
Samsung Elec. Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 39 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). · cites it 11× “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b)(3) (2014). However, “[i]f a subsidy is tied to the production or sale of a particular product, [Commerce] will attribute the subsidy only to that product.”
POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 169 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 5× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b)(6), (c). Commerce subsequently required the unaffiliated company Hyundai Corporation ("Hyundai") and two of POSCO's cross-owned supply companies -- POSCO M-Tech ("M-Tech") and POSCO Chemtech ("Chemtech") -- to submit questionnaire responses.”
Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, 2015 CIT 14 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). · cites it 5× “523 or under 19 C.F.R. § 351.525 to be without merit. Pursuant to 19 U.”
POSCO v. United States, 2018 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 4× “The Department found that POSCO and Daewoo are cross-owned through common ownership as defined in 19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b)(6)(vi). See Prelim.”
Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 2023 CIT 62 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). · cites it 5× “(“Nur”), a ship building company affiliated with Kaptan, Commerce has not provided adequate explanation in the Final Results regarding its determination that Nur was a “cross-owned input supplier” of primarily dedicated inputs under 19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b)(6)(iv). The court thus…”
Kaptan Demir Çelik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 2023 CIT 167 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). · cites it 5× “19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b)(6)(iv) (emphasis added).”
MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. v. United States, 659 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 3× “” Calculation of Ad Valorem Subsidy Rate and Attribution of Subsidy to a Product, 19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b). Here, Commerce found that the EPCGS “is contingent upon export” and, accordingly, determined that it was an export subsidy.”
Show all 54 citing cases →
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.525(a) — 1 case
CS Wind Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 149 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.525(b)(2) — 1 case
CS Wind Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. v. United States, 2025 CIT 149 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.525(b)(5) — 1 case
Maverick Tube Corp. v. United States, 2016 CIT 16 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.525(b)(6) — 1 case
Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. United States, 2025 CIT 115 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.525(b)(6)(iv) — 1 case
TMK IPSCO v. United States, 2017 CIT 54 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “The court held that 19 C.F.R. § 351.525 (b)(6)(iii) (2009) 3 does not give Commerce authority to attribute subsidies received by a subsidiary to the consolidated sales of the parent company’s other subsidiaries.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.525(b)(6)(vi) — 1 case
Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. v. United States, 2020 CIT 15 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.525(c) — 2 cases
Comm. Overseeing Action for Lumber Int'l Trade Investigations or Negot. v. United States, 2024 CIT 50 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).
Comm. Overseeing Action for Lumber Int'l Trade Investigations or Negots. v. United States, 2025 CIT 158 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
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.