19 U.S.C. § 1673e

Assessment of duty

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

(a) Publication of antidumping duty orderWithin 7 days after being notified by the Commission of an affirmative determination under section 1673d(b) of this title, the administering authority shall publish an antidumping duty order which—(1) directs customs officers to assess an antidumping duty equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or the constructed export price) of the merchandise, 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—(A) 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the end of the annual accounting period of the manufacturer or exporter within which the merchandise is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or(B) in the case of merchandise not sold prior to its importation into the United States, 12 months after the end of the annual accounting period of the manufacturer or exporter within which it is sold in the United States to a person who is not the exporter of that merchandise,(2) includes a description of the subject merchandise, in such detail as the administering authority deems necessary, and(3) requires the deposit of estimated antidumping duties pending liquidation of entries of merchandise at the same time as estimated normal customs duties on that merchandise are deposited.(b) Imposition of duty(1) General rule

If the Commission, in its final determination under section 1673d(b) of this title, finds material injury or threat of material injury which, but for the suspension of liquidation under section 1673b(d)(2) of this title would have led to a finding of material injury, then entries of the subject merchandise, the liquidation of which has been suspended under section 1673b(d)(2) of this title, shall be subject to the imposition of antidumping duties under section 1673 of this title.

(2) Special rule

If the Commission, in its final determination under section 1673d(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retardation of the establishment of an industry in the United States, then subject merchandise which is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of notice of an affirmative determination of the Commission under section 1673d(b) of this title shall be subject to the assessment of antidumping duties under section 1673 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 antidumping duties with respect to entries of the merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption before that date.

(c) Security in lieu of estimated duty pending early determination of duty(1) Conditions for waiver of deposit of estimated dutiesThe administering authority may permit, for not more than 90 days after the date of publication of an order under subsection (a), the posting of a bond or other security in lieu of the deposit of estimated antidumping duties required under subsection (a)(3) if—(A) the investigation has not been designated as extraordinarily complicated by reason of—(i) the number and complexity of the transactions to be investigated or adjustments to be considered,(ii) the novelty of the issues presented, or(iii) the number of firms whose activities must be investigated,(B) the final determination in the investigation has not been postponed under section 1673d(a)(2)(A) of this title;(C) on the basis of information presented to the administering authority by any manufacturer, producer, or exporter in such form and within such time as the administering authority may require, the administering authority is satisfied that a determination will be made, within 90 days after the date of publication of an order under subsection (a), of the normal value and the export price (or the constructed export price) for all merchandise of such manufacturer, producer, or exporter described in that order which was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of—(i) an affirmative preliminary determination by the administering authority under section 1673b(b) of this title, or(ii) if its determination under section 1673b(b) of this title was negative, an affirmative final determination by the administering authority under section 1673d(a) of this title,and before the date of publication of the affirmative final determination by the Commission under section 1673d(b) of this title;(D) the party described in subparagraph (C) provides credible evidence that the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or the constructed export price) of the merchandise is significantly less than the amount of such excess specified in the antidumping duty order published under subsection (a); and(E) the data concerning the normal value and the export price (or the constructed export price) apply to sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and the number of such sales are sufficient to form an adequate basis for comparison.(2) Notice; hearingIf the administering authority permits the posting of a bond or other security in lieu of the deposit of estimated antidumping duties under paragraph (1), it shall—(A) publish notice of its action in the Federal Register, and(B) upon the request of any interested party, hold a hearing in accordance with section 1677c of this title before determining the normal value and the export price (or the constructed export price) of the merchandise.(3) Determinations to be basis of antidumping duty

The administering authority shall publish notice in the Federal Register of the results of its determination of normal value and export price (or the constructed export price), and that determination shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise to which the notice under this subsection applies and also shall be the basis for the deposit of estimated antidumping duties on future entries of merchandise of manufacturers, producers, or exporters described in paragraph (1) to which the order issued under subsection (a) applies.

(4) Provision of business proprietary information; written commentsBefore determining whether to permit the posting of bond or other security under paragraph (1) in lieu of the deposit of estimated antidumping duties, the administering authority shall—(A) make all business proprietary information supplied to the administering authority under paragraph (1) available under a protective order in accordance with section 1677f(c) of this title to all interested parties described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of section 1677(9) of this title, and(B) afford all interested parties an opportunity to file written comments on whether the posting of bond or other security under paragraph (1) in lieu of the deposit of estimated antidumping duties should be permitted.(d) Special rule for regional industries(1) In general

In an investigation 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 antidumping 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, § 736, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 172; amended Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, § 1886(a)(7), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2922; Pub. L. 100–418, title I, § 1325, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1201; Pub. L. 103–465, title II, §§ 218(b)(2), 219(c)(9), 233(a)(1)(C), (2)(A)(iii), (5)(W)–(Y), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4855, 4857, 4898, 4900.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, § 233(a)(1)(C), (2)(A)(iii), substituted “normal value” for “foreign market value” and “export price (or the constructed export price)” for “United States price”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 103–465, § 233(a)(5)(W), substituted “subject merchandise” for “class or kind of merchandise to which it applies”.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, §§ 219(c)(9), 233(a)(5)(X), substituted “1673b(d)(2)” for “1673b(d)(1)” in two places and “subject merchandise” for “merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103–465, § 233(a)(5)(Y), substituted “subject merchandise” for “merchandise subject to an antidumping duty order”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–465, § 233(a)(1)(C), (2)(A)(iii), substituted “normal value” for “foreign market value” and “export price (or the constructed export price)” for “United States price” in pars. (1)(C) to (E), (2)(B), and (3).

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103–465, § 218(b)(2), added subsec. (d).

1988—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1325(a), amended par. (1) generally, designating existing provisions as cl. (C) and adding cls. (A), (B), (D), and (E).

Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 100–418, § 1325(b), added par. (4).

1986—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 99–514 inserted “, and was sold to any person that is not related to such manufacturer, producer, or exporter,” before “on or after the date”.

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 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–418 applicable with respect to investigations initiated after Aug. 23, 1988, and to reviews initiated under section 1673e(c) or 1675 of this title after Aug. 23, 1988, see section 1337(b) of Pub. L. 100–418, 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 170 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 6× “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673e(a)(1), 1677b(a)(1), 1677a(a).”

Consol. Bearings Co., Plaintiff-Cross v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1673e (2000); 19 U.S.C. § 1673d (2000).”

Royal Bus. MacHines, Inc. v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 1007 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1980). · cites it 6× “30613) under the authority of 19 U.S.C. § 1673e. 7 It directed Customs officers to assess antidumping duty against the merchandise subject to the previous withholding of appraisement and all future entries and to require the deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all the…”

Nat'l Fisheries Inst., Inc. v. United States Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 637 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 7× “§ 1623 (2000), when read in conjunction with 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673e(a)(3) or 1673g(a) (2000), prohibits Customs from considering anti-dumping duty liability when setting limits of liability on continuous bonds because security for potential antidumping duty liability is specifically…”

Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a) (1994). In the case of the published final results of an administrative review, the applicable statute provides that the final results should set forth the determination of antidumping duty rates that “shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping…”

Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 4× “Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at 999. As mentioned, the cash deposit rate is merely an estimate of the eventual liability importers subject to an antidumping duty order will bear.”

Diversified Prods. Corp. v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 883 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). · cites it 3× “Section 736(a)(3) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a)(3), provides in part that the ITA shall publish an anti-dumping order which requires the deposit of estimated antidumping duties pending the liquidation of entries.”

Skf USA Inc. v. United States, 611 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 6× “They maintain, however, that the Court of Appeals has not addressed plaintiffs’ specific statutory construction arguments.”

Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673e(c)(3), 1675(a)(2)(C); 19 C.”

Badger-Powhatan, a Div. of Figgie Intern. v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 1364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). · cites it 4× “8354 (1985); 19 U.S.C. § 1673e (1982). The order identified the merchandise covered by the investigation as the original seven products.”

Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. v. United States, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 5× “19 U.S.C. § 1673e addresses the assessment of duties *1284 and states that Commerce "directs customs officers to assess” in the sense that "assessment” means collection.”

Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 4× “” 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a). If the ITC’s final determination is negative, however, the investigation terminates, and Commerce is required to terminate the suspension of liquidation of entries, release bonds and securities, and refund cash deposits.”

Show all 170 citing cases →

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(Z)(l)(B) — 1 case

U.S. Steel Grp. v. United States, 123 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a) — 31 cases

Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a) (1994). In the case of the published final results of an administrative review, the applicable statute provides that the final results should set forth the determination of antidumping duty rates that “shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping…”

Abb, Inc. v. United States, 920 F.3d 811 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Royal Bus. MacHines, Inc. v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 1007 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1980). “30613) under the authority of 19 U.S.C. § 1673e. 7 It directed Customs officers to assess antidumping duty against the merchandise subject to the previous withholding of appraisement and all future entries and to require the deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all the…”

Am. Power Pull Corp. v. United States, 2015 CIT 128 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

Thyssenkrupp Steel N. Am., Inc. v. United States, 886 F.3d 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a)(1) — 15 cases

Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673e(a)(1), 1677b(a)(1), 1677a(a).”

Consol. Bearings Co., Plaintiff-Cross v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1673e (2000); 19 U.S.C. § 1673d (2000).”

Ugine & Alz Belgium, NV v. United States, 517 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).

New Mexico Garlic Growers v. United States, 953 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a)(2) — 18 cases

Fedmet Resources Corp. v. United States, 755 F.3d 912 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Belgium v. United States, 551 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 725 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 70 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a)(3) — 40 cases

Nat'l Fisheries Inst., Inc. v. United States Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 637 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “§ 1623 (2000), when read in conjunction with 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673e(a)(3) or 1673g(a) (2000), prohibits Customs from considering anti-dumping duty liability when setting limits of liability on continuous bonds because security for potential antidumping duty liability is specifically…”

Consol. Bearings Co., Plaintiff-Cross v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1673e (2000); 19 U.S.C. § 1673d (2000).”

Badger-Powhatan, a Div. of Figgie Intern. v. United States, 633 F. Supp. 1364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “8354 (1985); 19 U.S.C. § 1673e (1982). The order identified the merchandise covered by the investigation as the original seven products.”

Parkdale Int'l v. United States, 475 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Diversified Prods. Corp. v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 883 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). “Section 736(a)(3) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a)(3), provides in part that the ITA shall publish an anti-dumping order which requires the deposit of estimated antidumping duties pending the liquidation of entries.”

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a)(l) — 31 cases

Changshou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673e(a)(1), 1677b(a)(1), 1677a(a).”

Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at 999. As mentioned, the cash deposit rate is merely an estimate of the eventual liability importers subject to an antidumping duty order will bear.”

Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. v. United States, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “19 U.S.C. § 1673e addresses the assessment of duties *1284 and states that Commerce "directs customs officers to assess” in the sense that "assessment” means collection.”

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 618 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(b) — 12 cases

Metallverken Nederland B v. v. United States, 728 F. Supp. 730 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).

Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 741 F.3d 89 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 2013 CIT 44 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).

NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).

Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(b)(2) — 4 cases

Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a). If the ITC’s final determination is negative, however, the investigation terminates, and Commerce is required to terminate the suspension of liquidation of entries, release bonds and securities, and refund cash deposits.”

Changzhou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co. v. United States, 2013 CIT 127 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).

MBL (USA) Corp. v. United States, 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 108 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).

Cerro Flow Prods., LLC v. United States, 2014 CIT 84 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(b)(l) — 5 cases

Serampore Indus. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States Dep't of Com., 696 F. Supp. 665 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).

Metallverken Nederland B v. v. United States, 728 F. Supp. 730 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).

Nat'l Knitwear & Sportswear Ass'n v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 1364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991).

R-M Indus., Inc. v. United States, 848 F. Supp. 204 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).

Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 2013 CIT 44 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(c) — 16 cases

Daewoo Elec. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 931 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).

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

Brother Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 540 F. Supp. 1341 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1982).

Mittal Canada, Inc. v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(c)(2)(A) — 2 cases

Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 412 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(c)(3) — 8 cases

Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673e(c)(3), 1675(a)(2)(C); 19 C.”

Skf USA Inc. v. United States, 611 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “They maintain, however, that the Court of Appeals has not addressed plaintiffs’ specific statutory construction arguments.”

Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 412 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Smith-Corona Grp., Consum. Prods. Div., SCM Corp. v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 1015 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1980).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(c)(l) — 4 cases

Brother Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 540 F. Supp. 1341 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1982).

Smith-Corona Grp., Consum. Prods. Div., SCM Corp. v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 1015 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1980).

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).

Am. Hi-Fi Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 936 F. Supp. 1032 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(d) — 1 case

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 927 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(e) — 1 case

Florida Tomato Exch. v. United States, 2015 CIT 108 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(e)(2) — 1 case

Florida Tomato Exch. v. United States, 2015 CIT 108 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(e)(3) — 1 case

Nuove Industrie Elettriche Di Legnano S.P.A. v. United States, 739 F. Supp. 1567 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).

— 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(e)(l)(B) — 1 case

Florida Tomato Exch. v. United States, 2017 CIT 114 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).

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.