U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— TARIFF ACT OF 1930 › Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES › Part Part I— Imposition of Countervailing Duties

19 U.S.C. § 1671f

Treatment of difference between deposit of estimated countervailing duty and final assessed duty under countervailing duty order

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Deposit of estimated countervailing duty under section 1671b(d)(1)(B) of this titleIf the amount of a cash deposit, or the amount of any bond or other security, required as security for an estimated countervailing duty under section 1671b(d)(1)(B) of this title is different from the amount of the countervailing duty determined under a countervailing duty order issued under section 1671e of this title, then the difference for entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption before notice of the affirmative determination of the Commission under section 1671d(b) of this title is published shall be—(1) disregarded, to the extent that the cash deposit, bond, or other security is lower than the duty under the order, or(2) refunded or released, to the extent that the cash deposit, bond, or other security is higher than the duty under the order.(b) Deposit of estimated countervailing duty under section 1671e(a)(3) of this titleIf the amount of an estimated countervailing duty deposited under section 1671e(a)(3) of this title is different from the amount of the countervailing duty determined under a countervailing duty order issued under section 1671e of this title, then the difference for entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after notice of the affirmative determination of the Commission under section 1671d(b) of this title is published shall be—(1) collected, to the extent that the deposit under section 1671e(a)(3) of this title is lower than the duty determined under the order, or(2) refunded, to the extent that the deposit under section 1671e(a)(3) of this title is higher than the duty determined under the order,together with interest as provided by section 1677g of this title.(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 707, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 161; amended Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 264(c)(10), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4914.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–465 substituted “1671b(d)(1)(B)” for “1671b(d)(2)” in heading and text.

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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: New Zealand Lamb Co., Inc. v. United States, 149 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New Zealand Lamb Co., Inc. v. United States, 149 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1671f(a) (1988) (deposits made pursuant to an order under § 1671b(d)(2)).”
The Timken Co. v. The United States, Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., Koyo Corp. of U.S.A., Inc., Nsk, Ltd. & Nsk Corp., 37 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “19 U.S.C. § 1671f(a) (1988). For security posted under section 1671b(d)(2), section 1677g—the interest provision—does not apply.”
Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 181 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). · cites it 2× “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671f, 1673f, 1677g; 19 C.F.”
Fabricas El Carmen, SA, De CV v. United States, 680 F. Supp. 1577 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). · cites it 2× “19 U.S.C. § 1671f (1982). 4 . Plaintiff may of course obtain relief regarding this category of entries by filing a subsequent request for a 751 review.”
Canadian Fur Trappers Corp. v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). “As 19 U.S.C. § 1671f(b) (1982) provides, any difference between the amount deposited pursuant to § 1671e(a)(3) and the amount ultimately assessed as countervailing duties (as a result of the annual review, under § 751 of the 1979 Act, 19 U.”
Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 557 F. Supp. 596 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). “If in accordance with ITA’s final results of administrative review under section 1675 it develops that the estimated duties deposited exceed the actual countervailing duties ultimately determined to be due, defendants concede that the difference must be refunded to the importer…”
Philipp Bros., Inc. v. United States, 640 F. Supp. 261 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “A preliminary injunction has been issued which bars liquidation of the entries in question pending the “final determination” of this litigation. 5 In addition, if plaintiff ultimately prevails on the merits, it will be able to obtain refunds of any excess deposits of estimated…”
Ambassador Div. of Florsheim Shoe Co. v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 1016 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). “Both parties have additionally urged the utilization of 19 U.S.C. § 1671f, “Treatment of difference between deposit of estimated countervailing duty and final assessed duty under countervailing duty orders”, to sustain their positions as to the collection or noncollection of any…”
PPG Indus., Inc. v. United States, 11 Ct. Int'l Trade 5 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987). “In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1671f, the government must refund the deposit to the extent the deposit exceeds the amount determined to be due together with interest.”
Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. v. United States, 2023 CIT 22 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671f, 1673f, 1677¢; 19 C.F.”
New Zealand Lamb Co. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 442 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). · cites it 2× “Customs later imposed an interest assessment on the difference between the estimated duty deposited and the liquidated duty amount based on 19 U.S.C. § 1671f(b) (1988). However, the countervailing duty rate remained constant throughout the time period in question.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1671f(a) — 2 cases
The Timken Co. v. The United States, Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., Koyo Corp. of U.S.A., Inc., Nsk, Ltd. & Nsk Corp., 37 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “19 U.S.C. § 1671f(a) (1988). For security posted under section 1671b(d)(2), section 1677g—the interest provision—does not apply.”
New Zealand Lamb Co., Inc. v. United States, 149 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1671f(a) (1988) (deposits made pursuant to an order under § 1671b(d)(2)).”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1671f(b) — 4 cases
New Zealand Lamb Co., Inc. v. United States, 149 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1671f(a) (1988) (deposits made pursuant to an order under § 1671b(d)(2)).”
Canadian Fur Trappers Corp. v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). “As 19 U.S.C. § 1671f(b) (1982) provides, any difference between the amount deposited pursuant to § 1671e(a)(3) and the amount ultimately assessed as countervailing duties (as a result of the annual review, under § 751 of the 1979 Act, 19 U.”
The Timken Co. v. The United States, Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., Koyo Corp. of U.S.A., Inc., Nsk, Ltd. & Nsk Corp., 37 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “19 U.S.C. § 1671f(a) (1988). For security posted under section 1671b(d)(2), section 1677g—the interest provision—does not apply.”
New Zealand Lamb Co. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 442 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). “Customs later imposed an interest assessment on the difference between the estimated duty deposited and the liquidated duty amount based on 19 U.S.C. § 1671f(b) (1988). However, the countervailing duty rate remained constant throughout the time period in question.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1671f(b)(2) — 1 case
Philipp Bros., Inc. v. United States, 640 F. Supp. 261 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “A preliminary injunction has been issued which bars liquidation of the entries in question pending the “final determination” of this litigation. 5 In addition, if plaintiff ultimately prevails on the merits, it will be able to obtain refunds of any excess deposits of estimated…”
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.