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. § 1673g

Conditional payment of antidumping duty

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) General rule

For all entries, or withdrawals from warehouse, for consumption of merchandise subject to an antidumping duty order on or after the date of publication of such order, no customs officer may deliver merchandise of that class or kind to the person by whom or for whose account it was imported unless that person complies with the requirements of subsection (b) and deposits with the appropriate customs officer an estimated antidumping duty in an amount determined by the administering authority.

(b) Importer requirementsIn order to meet the requirements of this subsection, a person shall—(1) furnish, or arrange to have furnished, to the appropriate customs officer such information as the administering authority deems necessary for determining the export price (or the constructed export price) of the merchandise imported by or for the account of that person, and such other information as the administering authority deems necessary for ascertaining any antidumping duty to be imposed under this subtitle;(2) maintain and furnish to the customs officer such records concerning the sale of the merchandise as the administering authority, by regulation, requires;(3) state under oath before the customs officer that he is not an exporter, or if he is an exporter, declare under oath at the time of entry the constructed export price of the merchandise to the customs officer if it is then known, or, if not, so declare within 30 days after the merchandise has been sold, or has been made the subject of an agreement to be sold, in the United States; and(4) pay, or agree to pay on demand, to the customs officer the amount of antidumping duty imposed under section 1673 of this title on that merchandise.(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 738, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 174; amended Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 233(a)(2)(A)(iv), (B), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4898.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 103–465, § 233(a)(2)(A)(iv), substituted “export price (or the constructed export price)” for “United States price”.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 103–465, § 233(a)(2)(B), substituted “constructed export price” for “exporter’s sales price”.

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 13 cases, 1986–2020 · leading case: Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). · cites it 10× “Because importers are responsible for the antidumping duties imposed on their entries, see 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(4), the entry-specific and importer-specific methods result in equivalent liabilities for each importer to the extent that reviewed entries correspond to reviewed…”
Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(4); 19 C.F.R. § 141.”
Transcom, Inc., & L & S Bearing Co. v. Unite States, & the Timken Co., 182 F.3d 876 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Under the antidumping laws, the government contends, an importer of goods may not raise the notice issue because an importer agrees in advance to pay whatever anti-dumping duties are ultimately assessed on those goods.”
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “10-12 (1921)); accord 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(4) (1988); 19 C.F.R.”
Badger-Powhatan, a Div. of Figgie Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). · cites it 2× “19 U.S.C. § 1673g (1982). 5 Such importers are not parties to this suit.”
Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 613 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(4); 19 U.S.C. § 1675 (a)(2)(C); 19 C.”
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). “1 See also 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(a) (1988) (requiring persons by whom or for whose account the merchandise was imported to “deposit[ ] .”
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 947 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b). An exporter or producer named in an antidumping duty order is subject to annual administrative reviews, if initiated, whose purpose is to “determine .”
Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “KYD’s information would not appear to provide a "reliable basis” for these determinations, 19 U.”
Hartford Ins. Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 172 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 2× “Hartford further contends that once Commerce issues an antidumping order, Customs, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(a), must collect a cash deposit of the estimated duties as security on entries of merchandise subject to an antidumping duty order, and Customs may accept a bond in…”
KYD, Inc. v. United States Pub. version posted on 05/14/2010, 2010 CIT 50 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “Remand in this action is limited to KYD’s entries of the subject merchandise during the POR—entries which have already occurred and for which KYD alone is required to pay duties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(4). Commerce need not revisit the assessment rate for entries not…”
JCM, Ltd. v. United States, 1999 CIT 21 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “§ 1673d(c) (1) (B) (i) (I)-(II) with 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(4). Second, Plaintiff could have participated by submitting case briefs, rebuttals and comments at the appropriate time because it was an interested party within the meaning of 19 U.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(a) — 3 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). “1 See also 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(a) (1988) (requiring persons by whom or for whose account the merchandise was imported to “deposit[ ] .”
Hartford Ins. Co. v. United States, 2018 CIT 172 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “Hartford further contends that once Commerce issues an antidumping order, Customs, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(a), must collect a cash deposit of the estimated duties as security on entries of merchandise subject to an antidumping duty order, and Customs may accept a bond in…”
Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. v. United States, 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 806 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b) — 1 case
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 947 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b). An exporter or producer named in an antidumping duty order is subject to annual administrative reviews, if initiated, whose purpose is to “determine .”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(3) — 1 case
Badger-Powhatan, a Div. of Figgie Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “19 U.S.C. § 1673g (1982). 5 Such importers are not parties to this suit.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(4) — 8 cases
Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). “Because importers are responsible for the antidumping duties imposed on their entries, see 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(4), the entry-specific and importer-specific methods result in equivalent liabilities for each importer to the extent that reviewed entries correspond to reviewed…”
Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(4); 19 C.F.R. § 141.”
Transcom, Inc., & L & S Bearing Co. v. Unite States, & the Timken Co., 182 F.3d 876 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Under the antidumping laws, the government contends, an importer of goods may not raise the notice issue because an importer agrees in advance to pay whatever anti-dumping duties are ultimately assessed on those goods.”
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). “10-12 (1921)); accord 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(4) (1988); 19 C.F.R.”
Kyd, Inc. v. United States, 613 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1673g(b)(4); 19 U.S.C. § 1675 (a)(2)(C); 19 C.”
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.