U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— TARIFF ACT OF 1930 › Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES › Part Part IV— General Provisions

19 U.S.C. § 1677d

Countervailable subsidy practices discovered during a proceeding

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
If, in the course of a proceeding under this subtitle, the administering authority discovers a practice which appears to be a countervailable subsidy, but was not included in the matters alleged in a countervailing duty petition, or if the administering authority receives notice from the Trade Representative that a subsidy or subsidy program is in violation of Article 8 of the Subsidies Agreement, then the administering authority—(1) shall include the practice, subsidy, or subsidy program in the proceeding if the practice, subsidy, or subsidy program appears to be a countervailable subsidy with respect to the merchandise which is the subject of the proceeding, or(2) shall transfer the information (other than confidential information) concerning the practice, subsidy, or subsidy program to the library maintained under section 1677f(a)(1) of this title, if the practice, subsidy, or subsidy program appears to be a countervailable subsidy with respect to any other merchandise.(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 775, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 186; amended Pub. L. 98–573, title VI, § 617, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3037; Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, § 1886(a)(12), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2922; Pub. L. 103–465, title II, § 283(b), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4930.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–465 substituted “Countervailable subsidy” for “Subsidy” in section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “If, in the course of a proceeding under this subtitle, the administering authority discovers a practice which appears to be a subsidy, but was not included in the matters alleged in a countervailing duty petition, then the administering authority—

“(1) shall include the practice in the proceeding if it appears to be a subsidy with respect to the merchandise which is the subject of the proceeding, or

“(2) shall transfer the information concerning the practice (other than confidential information) to the library maintained under section 1677f(a)(1) of this title, if the practice appears to be a subsidy with respect to any other merchandise.”

1986—Pub. L. 99–514 substituted “a proceeding” for “an proceeding” in introductory provisions.

1984—Pub. L. 98–573 substituted “proceeding” for “investigation” wherever appearing.

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 effective Oct. 30, 1984, see section 626(a) of Pub. L. 98–573, 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 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). · cites it 25× “Here, Commerce determined to investigate both the Solar I PRC programs and the additional grants and tax deduction found at verification as discovered apparent subsidies, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677d. Final Decision Memo at 16-19, 85; Decision Mem.”
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 112 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). · cites it 6× “According to Plaintiffs, 19 U.S.C. § 1677d and its implementing regulation, as well as 19 U.”
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 927 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677d; Allegheny Ludlum Corp.”
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). · cites it 3× “” (Plaintiffs’ Brief, at 29, citing, 19 U.S.C. § 1677d). Plaintiffs further contend the record clearly demonstrates that the slab subsidy program meets the requirements for countervailability: (1) government action; (2) benefit; and (3) specificity.”
MacLean-fogg Co. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs argued that 19 U.S.C. § 1677d was plain on its face in requiring Commerce to use countervailing duty rates for voluntary respondents in calculating the all-others rate, and that Commerce’s regulation to the contrary was unlawful.”
Huffy Corp. v. United States, 632 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff argues that 19 U.S.C. § 1677d (1982) requires the ITA to investigate the potential subsidies in such a case.”
Mosaic Co. v. United States, 2025 CIT 34 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025). · cites it 3× “Mosaic I concluded, first, that the statutory provision upon which OCP relied, 19 U.S.C. § 1677d, did not support the limitations OCP advocated with respect to “the means or methods by which Commerce ‘discovers a practice which appears to be a countervailable subsidy.”
Acciai Speciali Terni S.P.A. v. United States, 142 F. Supp. 2d 969 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). “19 U.S.C. § 1677d(2) (1994). Therefore, the Final Determination had to be issued, at the very latest, by May 19, 1999.”
Longkou Haimeng Mach. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677d(c)(5). The agency conducted a review of past practice and determined that the conditions present in the underlying proceeding were most analogous to those extant in NME investigations.”
Consol. Int'l Auto., Inc. v. United States, 809 F. Supp. 125 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992). · cites it 3× “The court adheres to precedent. 2. Use of transfer prices for inputs and other objections to foreign market value Consolidated objects to ITA’s use of transfer prices for inputs in determining constructed value for Gourmet, even though the prices were charged by an unrelated…”
Posco v. United States, 977 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677d; Allegheny Ludlum Corp.”
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, 2013 CIT 66 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013). “That being the case, Petitioners argue, Commerce was statutorily required under 19 U.S.C. § 1677d to issue a final determination regarding the countervailability of the steam coal provision.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677d(2) — 1 case
Acciai Speciali Terni S.P.A. v. United States, 142 F. Supp. 2d 969 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). “19 U.S.C. § 1677d(2) (1994). Therefore, the Final Determination had to be issued, at the very latest, by May 19, 1999.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677d(b) — 1 case
United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677d(c)(5) — 1 case
Longkou Haimeng Mach. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1677d(c)(5). The agency conducted a review of past practice and determined that the conditions present in the underlying proceeding were most analogous to those extant in NME investigations.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677d(c)(5)(A) — 1 case
Yantai Oriental Juice Co. v. United States, 2003 CIT 33 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677d(c)(5)(B) — 1 case
Yantai Oriental Juice Co. v. United States, 2003 CIT 33 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677d(l) — 1 case
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). “Here, Commerce determined to investigate both the Solar I PRC programs and the additional grants and tax deduction found at verification as discovered apparent subsidies, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677d. Final Decision Memo at 16-19, 85; Decision Mem.”
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.