19 U.S.C. § 1671e

Assessment of duty

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Publication of countervailing duty orderWithin 7 days after being notified by the Commission of an affirmative determination under section 1671d(b) of this title, the administering authority shall publish a countervailing duty order which—(1) directs customs officers to assess a countervailing duty equal to the amount of the net countervailable subsidy determined or estimated to exist, within 6 months after the date on which the administering authority receives satisfactory information upon which the assessment may be based, but in no event later than 12 months after the end of the annual accounting period of the manufacturer or exporter within which the merchandise is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption,(2) includes a description of the subject merchandise, in such detail as the administering authority deems necessary, and(3) requires the deposit of estimated countervailing duties pending liquidation of entries of merchandise at the same time as estimated normal customs duties on that merchandise are deposited.(b) Imposition of duties(1) General rule

If the Commission, in its final determination under section 1671d(b) of this title, finds material injury or threat of material injury which, but for the suspension of liquidation under section 1671b(d)(2) of this title, would have led to a finding of material injury, then entries of the merchandise subject to the countervailing duty order, the liquidation of which has been suspended under section 1671b(d)(2) of this title, shall be subject to the imposition of countervailing duties under section 1671(a) of this title.

(2) Special rule

If the Commission, in its final determination under section 1671d(b) of this title, finds threat of material injury, other than threat of material injury described in paragraph (1), or material retardation of the establishment of an industry in the United States, then merchandise subject to a countervailing duty order which is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of notice of an affirmative determination of the Commission under section 1671d(b) of this title shall be subject to the imposition of countervailing duties under section 1671(a) of this title, and the administering authority shall release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit made, to secure the payment of countervailing duties with respect to entries of the merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption before that date.

In an investigation under this part in which the Commission makes a regional industry determination under section 1677(4)(C) of this title, the administering authority shall, to the maximum extent possible, direct that duties be assessed only on the subject merchandise of the specific exporters or producers that exported the subject merchandise for sale in the region concerned during the period of investigation.

(2) Exception for new exporters and producers

After publication of the countervailing duty order, if the administering authority finds that a new exporter or producer is exporting the subject merchandise for sale in the region concerned, the administering authority shall direct that duties be assessed on the subject merchandise of the new exporter or producer consistent with the provisions of section 1675(a)(2)(B) of this title.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 706, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 160; amended Pub. L. 98–573, title VI, § 607, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3029; Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, § 1886(a)(5), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2922; Pub. L. 103–465, title II, §§ 218(b)(1), 233(a)(5)(O), 264(c)(9), 265, 270(a)(1)(H), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4855, 4899, 4914, 4917.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, § 270(a)(1)(H), substituted “countervailable subsidy” for “subsidy”.

Subsec. (a)(2) to (4). Pub. L. 103–465, §§ 233(a)(5)(O), 265, redesignated par. (3) as (2) and substituted “subject merchandise” for “class or kind of merchandise to which it applies”, redesignated par. (4) as (3), and struck out former par. (2) which read as follows:

“(2) shall presumptively apply to all merchandise of such class or kind exported from the country investigated, except that if—

“(A) the administering authority determines there is a significant differential between companies receiving subsidy benefits, or

“(B) a State-owned enterprise is involved,

the order may provide for differing countervailing duties,”.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, § 264(c)(9), substituted “1671b(d)(2)” for “1671b(d)(1)” in two places.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–465, § 218(b)(1), added subsec. (c).

1986—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 99–514 realigned the margins in provisions following subpar. (B), which realignment had been editorially supplied, thereby requiring no change in text.

1984—Subsec. (a)(2) to (4). Pub. L. 98–573 added par. (2) and redesignated pars. (2) and (3) as (3) and (4), respectively.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–465 effective, except as otherwise provided, on the date on which the WTO Agreement enters into force with respect to the United States (Jan. 1, 1995), and applicable with respect to investigations, reviews, and inquiries initiated and petitions filed under specified provisions of this chapter after such date, see section 291 of Pub. L. 103–465, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–573 effective Oct. 30, 1984, see section 626(a) of Pub. L. 98–573, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Plan Amendments Not Required Until January 1, 1989

For provisions directing that if any amendments made by subtitle A or subtitle C of title XI [§§ 1101–1147 and 1171–1177] or title XVIII [§§ 1801–1899A] of Pub. L. 99–514 require an amendment to any plan, such plan amendment shall not be required to be made before the first plan year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 1989, see section 1140 of Pub. L. 99–514, as amended, set out as a note under section 401 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 68 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 741 F.3d 89 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 741 F.3d 89 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671e(b) and 1673e(b), 2 the effective date depends on the nature of the ITC determination, which will lead to the application of either the “General Rule” or the “Special Rule” (collectively, “the Rules”).”

Siemens Energy, Inc. v. United States, 806 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 8× “3d at 96–100 (interpreting 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671e(a) and 1673e(a)). We affirmed Com- merce’s interpretation that, under 19 U.”

Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, & U.S. Magnesium LLC, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “6 Commerce dictates to Customs the proper *1351 countervailing duty rate, 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a), and Customs “liquidates” the duty, that is, it makes the “final computation or ascertainment of duties .”

Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 2013 CIT 44 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013). · cites it 8× “S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) at the conclusion of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations covering utility scale wind towers from the People’s Republic of China (“China”) and the antidumping investigation covering that same merchandise from the Socialist…”

Coalition for the Pres. of Am. Brake Drum & Rotor Aftermarket Mfrs. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 229 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). · cites it 3× “57 (1993), for the proposition that “this Court has ruled that there is a preference for the employment of country wide rates by the agency when faced with administrative constraints.”

Geneva Steel v. United States, 914 F. Supp. 563 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). · cites it 4× “) Therefore, Domestic Producers argue, Fabfer’s contention that Commerce apply a company-specific rate to Fabfer must fail.”

Ipsco, Inc. v. United States, 687 F. Supp. 614 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). · cites it 3× “” 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(2) (Supp. IV 1986). 3 As Congress noted in enacting § 1671e(a)(2), the purpose of the country-wide presumption is “to lessen the administrative burden on the administering authority stemming from implementing of company specific rates.”

Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “19 U.S.C. §§ 1671e(a)(2), 1673e(a)(2). Antidumping investigations are typically initiated by a petition filed with Commerce by a domestic industry.”

Ceramica Regiomontanam, S.A. v. United States, 636 F. Supp. 961 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “2948 , 3029 (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(2) (West Supp.1985)).”

Ipsco, Inc., & Ipsco Steel, Inc. v. The United States, Lone Star Steel Co., 899 F.2d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(2) (1988) (countervailing duty orders “presumptively apply to all merchandise of such kind or class exported from the country investigated”).”

Fabricas El Carmen, SA, De CV v. United States, 672 F. Supp. 1465 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987). · cites it 6× “Defendant also cites 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a) and concludes that ITA’s “decision was clearly reasonable in light of the large number of Mexican textile exporters and the low 3.”

Serampore Indus. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States Dep't of Com., 675 F. Supp. 1354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987). · cites it 2× “, the law likewise distinguishes between the collection of cash deposits for estimated countervailing duties, 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(4) (Supp. Ill 1985); 19 C.”

Show all 68 citing cases →

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(2) — 1 case

Ipsco, Inc. v. United States, 687 F. Supp. 614 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(2) (Supp. IV 1986). 3 As Congress noted in enacting § 1671e(a)(2), the purpose of the country-wide presumption is “to lessen the administrative burden on the administering authority stemming from implementing of company specific rates.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a) — 14 cases

Siemens Energy, Inc. v. United States, 806 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “3d at 96–100 (interpreting 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671e(a) and 1673e(a)). We affirmed Com- merce’s interpretation that, under 19 U.”

Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, & U.S. Magnesium LLC, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “6 Commerce dictates to Customs the proper *1351 countervailing duty rate, 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a), and Customs “liquidates” the duty, that is, it makes the “final computation or ascertainment of duties .”

MacLean-fogg Co. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP v. United States, 2003 CIT 167 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(1) — 1 case

Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2006).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(2) — 23 cases

Coalition for the Pres. of Am. Brake Drum & Rotor Aftermarket Mfrs. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 229 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “57 (1993), for the proposition that “this Court has ruled that there is a preference for the employment of country wide rates by the agency when faced with administrative constraints.”

Ceramica Regiomontanam, S.A. v. United States, 636 F. Supp. 961 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “2948 , 3029 (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(2) (West Supp.1985)).”

Ipsco, Inc., & Ipsco Steel, Inc. v. The United States, Lone Star Steel Co., 899 F.2d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(2) (1988) (countervailing duty orders “presumptively apply to all merchandise of such kind or class exported from the country investigated”).”

Geneva Steel v. United States, 914 F. Supp. 563 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). “) Therefore, Domestic Producers argue, Fabfer’s contention that Commerce apply a company-specific rate to Fabfer must fail.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(2)(A) — 5 cases

Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 727 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).

Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 156 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 1179 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).

Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 358 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(3) — 6 cases

Canadian Fur Trappers Corp. v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).

Nat'l Fisheries Inst., Inc. v. United States Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 465 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

New Zealand Lamb Co., Inc. v. United States, 149 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).

Wirth Ltd. v. United States, 5 F. Supp. 2d 968 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(4) — 3 cases

Serampore Indus. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States Dep't of Com., 675 F. Supp. 1354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987). “, the law likewise distinguishes between the collection of cash deposits for estimated countervailing duties, 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(4) (Supp. Ill 1985); 19 C.”

Rheem Metalurgica S/A v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1450 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works, Ltd. v. United States, 729 F. Supp. 1365 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(S) — 1 case

Nat'l Fisheries Inst., Inc. v. United States Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 637 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(a)(l) — 6 cases

PPG Indus., Inc. v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 965 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987).

Cementos Guadalajara, S.A. v. United States, 686 F. Supp. 335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).

Cementos Anahuac Del Golfo, S.A. v. United States, 689 F. Supp. 1191 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(b) — 5 cases

Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 741 F.3d 89 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671e(b) and 1673e(b), 2 the effective date depends on the nature of the ITC determination, which will lead to the application of either the “General Rule” or the “Special Rule” (collectively, “the Rules”).”

Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 2013 CIT 44 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013). “S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) at the conclusion of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations covering utility scale wind towers from the People’s Republic of China (“China”) and the antidumping investigation covering that same merchandise from the Socialist…”

Posco v. United States, 977 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

Lone Star Steel Co. v. United States, 649 F. Supp. 75 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(b)(2) — 5 cases

Tembec, Inc. v. United States, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

Tembec, Inc. v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

Diamond Sawblades Mfrs.' Coal. v. United States, 2014 CIT 105 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(b)(l) — 2 cases

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(c) — 1 case

United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(c)(1) — 1 case

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 159 F. Supp. 2d 730 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(d)(l) — 2 cases

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).

United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1671e(f)(3)(B) — 1 case

Usinas Siderúrgicas De Minas Gerais S/A v. United States, 201 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

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.