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. § 1673f

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

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Deposit of estimated antidumping duty under section 1673b(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 antidumping duty under section 1673b(d)(1)(B) of this title is different from the amount of the antidumping duty determined under an antidumping duty order published under section 1673e of this title, then the difference for entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption before notice of the affirmative determination of the Commission under section 1673d(b) of this title is published shall be—(1)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 antidumping duty under section 1673e(a)(3) of this titleIf the amount of an estimated antidumping duty deposited under section 1673e(a)(3) of this title is different from the amount of the antidumping duty determined under an antidumping duty order published under section 1673e of this title, then the difference for entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after notice of the affirmative determination of the Commission under section 1673d(b) of this title is published shall be—(1) collected, to the extent that the deposit under section 1673e(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 1673e(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, § 737, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 173; amended Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 219(c)(10), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4857; Pub. L. 104–295, § 40, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3541.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–295, § 40(1), substituted “deposit, or the amount of any bond or other security, required” for “deposit collected” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 104–295, § 40(2), substituted “that the cash deposit, bond, or other security” for “the cash deposit collected”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–295, § 40(3), substituted “refunded or released, to the extent that the cash deposit, bond, or other security” for “refunded, to the extent the cash deposit”.

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–465 substituted “1673b(d)(1)(B)” for “1673b(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 52 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Daewoo Elec. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 931 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Daewoo Elec. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 931 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989). · cites it 4× “Since the ITA requested a remand without stating its position with regard to its interpretation of Section 737(a), and without admitting an error, the Court ordered the ITA to provide “a memorandum of points and authorities explaining the legal position and the administrative…”
Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 4× “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673f(b), 1677g. As a result, under this regime, theoretically, an importer should be no more disinclined to import goods into the United States under the threat that an appeal (or administrative review) will reinstate a prior cash deposit rate than it would if…”
Universal Polybag Co., Ltd. v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). · cites it 5× “Commerce also determined that the provisional measure cap, 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a), applied, and so the merchandise was to be liquidated at the lesser of (1) the 122.”
Dynacraft Indus., Inc. v. United States, 2000 CIT 119 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). · cites it 11× “Instead, Defendant argues that 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673f and 1677g, which are found within the unfair trade laws, govern the payment of interest in this case.”
Timken Co. v. United States, 795 F. Supp. 438 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992). · cites it 5× “Antidumping Duty Assessment Cap: Timken argues that the antidumping duty assessment cap contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a) (1988) 7 does not apply in this case.”
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 4× “19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a) (1988) (emphasis added).”
AOC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989). · cites it 3× “ANTIDUMPING DUTY ASSESSMENT CAP Plaintiffs challenge the ITA’s interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a). 6 Plain *320 tiffs assert that according to this statutory provision, the assessment of antidumping duties should be limited to the preliminary deposit rates of the initial…”
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. & Koyo Corp. of U.S.A. v. The United States & the Timken Co., 95 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “19 U.S.C. § 1673f. In other words, the cap on the assessment of antidumping duties is the amount of cash deposited (or bond posted) as security for an estimated antidumping duty.”
Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). · cites it 3× “§ 1675 (a) allows parties to request an administrative review, and that 19 U.S.C. § 1673f allows parties to “obtain interest on overpayment of such duties based on the results of [the administrative] review.”
Goodluck India Ltd. v. United States, 2023 CIT 164 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). · cites it 2× “3d at 1047; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1673f. 5 A “conclusive court decision” is reached when all “judicial review proceedings of the antidumping order have been completed.”
Diversified Prods. Corp. v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 883 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). “Those duty deposits are estimates only and are adjusted at the time of liquidation in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1673f. There is no statutory support for Diversified’s theory that if there is insufficient data available to assess absolutely accurate amounts for such duty…”
Padilla v. United States, 659 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff asserts that the so-called “cap provision” found in 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a) applies to its 5 entries of PRCBs made in October and November of 2004, and that this provision limits the collection of antidumping duties on those entries to the 2.”
Show all 52 citing cases →
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a) — 24 cases
Timken Co. v. United States, 795 F. Supp. 438 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992). “Antidumping Duty Assessment Cap: Timken argues that the antidumping duty assessment cap contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a) (1988) 7 does not apply in this case.”
Universal Polybag Co., Ltd. v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “Commerce also determined that the provisional measure cap, 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a), applied, and so the merchandise was to be liquidated at the lesser of (1) the 122.”
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. § 1673f(a) (1988) (emphasis added).”
Dynacraft Indus., Inc. v. United States, 2000 CIT 119 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “Instead, Defendant argues that 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673f and 1677g, which are found within the unfair trade laws, govern the payment of interest in this case.”
Daewoo Elec. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 931 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989). “Since the ITA requested a remand without stating its position with regard to its interpretation of Section 737(a), and without admitting an error, the Court ordered the ITA to provide “a memorandum of points and authorities explaining the legal position and the administrative…”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a)(1) — 1 case
Thai Pineapple Canning Indus. Corp. v. United States, 2000 CIT 17 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a)(2) — 1 case
Torrington Co. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 1189 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a)(l) — 3 cases
Universal Polybag Co., Ltd. v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “Commerce also determined that the provisional measure cap, 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a), applied, and so the merchandise was to be liquidated at the lesser of (1) the 122.”
AOC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989). “ANTIDUMPING DUTY ASSESSMENT CAP Plaintiffs challenge the ITA’s interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(a). 6 Plain *320 tiffs assert that according to this statutory provision, the assessment of antidumping duties should be limited to the preliminary deposit rates of the initial…”
Thai Pineapple Canning Indus. Corp. v. United States, 2000 CIT 17 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(b) — 12 cases
Dynacraft Indus., Inc. v. United States, 2000 CIT 119 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “Instead, Defendant argues that 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673f and 1677g, which are found within the unfair trade laws, govern the payment of interest in this case.”
Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1438 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673f(b), 1677g. As a result, under this regime, theoretically, an importer should be no more disinclined to import goods into the United States under the threat that an appeal (or administrative review) will reinstate a prior cash deposit rate than it would if…”
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Goodluck India Ltd. v. United States, 2023 CIT 164 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). “3d at 1047; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1673f. 5 A “conclusive court decision” is reached when all “judicial review proceedings of the antidumping order have been completed.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(b)(2) — 3 cases
Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673f(b), 1677g. As a result, under this regime, theoretically, an importer should be no more disinclined to import goods into the United States under the threat that an appeal (or administrative review) will reinstate a prior cash deposit rate than it would if…”
Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “§ 1675 (a) allows parties to request an administrative review, and that 19 U.S.C. § 1673f allows parties to “obtain interest on overpayment of such duties based on the results of [the administrative] review.”
J.D. Irving, Ltd. v. United States, 2023 CIT 10 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(b)(2)(1994) — 1 case
Queen's Flowers de Colombia v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1122 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673f(b)(l) — 3 cases
Decca Hosp. Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673f(b), 1677g. As a result, under this regime, theoretically, an importer should be no more disinclined to import goods into the United States under the threat that an appeal (or administrative review) will reinstate a prior cash deposit rate than it would if…”
Nat'l Fisheries Inst., Inc. v. United States Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 637 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).
Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “§ 1675 (a) allows parties to request an administrative review, and that 19 U.S.C. § 1673f allows parties to “obtain interest on overpayment of such duties based on the results of [the administrative] review.”
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.