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

19 U.S.C. § 1673

Antidumping duties imposed

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
If—(1) the administering authority determines that a class or kind of foreign merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than its fair value, and(2) the Commission determines that—(A) an industry in the United States—(i) is materially injured, or(ii) is threatened with material injury, or(B) the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded,by reason of imports of that merchandise or by reason of sales (or the likelihood of sales) of that merchandise for importation,then there shall be imposed upon such merchandise an antidumping duty, in addition to any other duty imposed, in an amount equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price (or the constructed export price) for the merchandise. For purposes of this section and section 1673d(b)(1) of this title, a reference to the sale of foreign merchandise includes the entering into of any leasing arrangement regarding the merchandise that is equivalent to the sale of the merchandise.(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 731, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 162; amended Pub. L. 98–573, title VI, § 602(b), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3024; Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 233(a)(1)(A), (2)(A)(i), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4898.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–465 substituted “normal value exceeds the export price (or the constructed export price)” for “foreign market value exceeds the United States price” in concluding provisions.

1984—Pub. L. 98–573 inserted “or by reason of sales (or the likelihood of sales) of that merchandise for importation” after “by reason of imports of that merchandise” in par. (2), and inserted sentence at end providing that for purposes of this section and section 1673d(b)(1) of this title, a reference to the sale of foreign merchandise includes the entering into of any leasing arrangement regarding the merchandise that is equivalent to the sale of the merchandise.

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 applicable with respect to investigations initiated by petition or by the administering authority under parts I and II of this subtitle, and to reviews begun under section 1675 of this title, on or after Oct. 30, 1984, see section 626(b)(1) of Pub. L. 98–573, as amended, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Effective Date

Part effective Jan. 1, 1980, see section 107 of Pub. L. 96–39, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 654 cases (96 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 8× “" 19 U.S.C. § 1673 . Such duties are collected by Customs.”
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien Lp, 812 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “Only if Commerce determines that the merchandise is being sold at less-than-fair value, see 19 U.S.C. § 1673 (1) (1994), and the ITC de- termines that a domestic industry is materially injured or is threatened with material injury, see 19 U.”
Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 5× “The imposition of antidumping duties is governed by 19 U.S.C. § 1673 et seq. (1994); “dumping” is the sale of foreign merchandise in the United States at less than fair value.”
United States v. Eurodif S. A., 555 U.S. 305 (2009). · cites it 4× “Section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930 calls for “antidumping” duties on “foreign merchandise” sold in the United States at “less than its fair value,” 19 U. S. C. § 1673 , but does not touch international sales of services.”
Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 538 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). · cites it 8× “(Motorola) filed an antidumping petition with the ITA and the ITC alleging that Japanese-manufactured cellular mobile telephones (CMTs), mobile transceivers and su-bassemblies imported as “kits” were being sold or likely to be sold at less than fair value (LTFV) in the United…”
Nsk Ltd. & Nsk Corp. v. The United States, & Fed.-Mogul Corp., & the Torrington Co., 115 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 1997). · cites it 5× “The antidumping laws impose additional duties on imported products that are being sold, or are likely to be sold, at less than their fair value to the detriment of a domestic industry.”
Usec Inc. v. United States, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 6× “401 (h), and Commerce’s Prior Decisions Related Thereto 6 Title 19 U.S.C. § 1673 provides that antidumping duties may be imposed on imported merchandise where “a class or kind of foreign merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value”…”
Union Steel v. United States, 2012 CIT 24 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). · cites it 4× “STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 19 U.S.C. § 1673 . Imposition of anti-dumping duties If— (1) the administering authority determines that a class or kind of foreign merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than its fair value, and (2) the Commission…”
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. & Koyo Corp. of U.S.A. v. The United States, & the Timken Co., 66 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995). · cites it 5× “The Calculation of Antidumping Duties Under the statutory provision governing the imposition of antidumping duties, Commerce is required to impose additional duties on imported merchandise that is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value…”
Nec Corp. & Hnsx Supercomputers, Inc. v. United States & Dep't of Com., & Cray Rsch., Inc., 151 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “Only if Commerce determines that the merchandise is being sold at less-than-fair value (“LTFV”), see 19 U.S.C. § 1673 (1) (1994), and the ITC determines that a domestic industry is materially injured or "is threatened with material injury, see 19 U.”
Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States v. Coalition for Fair Atl. Salmon Trade, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “19 U.S.C. § 1673 . Commerce determines those duties by first calculating the “dumping margin” for the subject merchandise, i.”
Hung Vuong Corp. v. United States, 2020 CIT 174 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). · cites it 3× “” 19 U.S.C. § 1673 (1). The Court No. 19-00055 Page 7 gist of the process is that an “interested party” as de- fined in the Tariff Act of 19305 files a petition simulta- neously with Commerce and the International Trade Commission alleging that a U.”
Show all 654 citing cases →
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673(1) — 2 cases
BlueScope Steel, Ltd. v. United States, 2024 CIT 88 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).
Green Garden Produce, LLC v. United States, 2026 CIT 51 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2026).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673(1)(1994) — 1 case
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. United States, 8 F. Supp. 2d 854 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
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.