AD

Subscribe to AD

On November 18, 2022, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of advanced proposed rulemaking seeking public comments with respect to its methodology in determining the existence of a particular market situation (“PMS”) that distorts the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade in the context of its antidumping duty (“AD”) proceedings.  This PMS provision was added to Section 773(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, through the Trade Preferences Extension Act in 2015.  As a result of several adverse court decisions since the passage of this amendment, the Department intends to reconsider its approach to determining the existence of a PMS, and to issue a new regulation to identify the types of information that should be considered when determining whether a PMS distorting the cost of production exists.  Comments are due no later than December 18, 2022. …

Continue Reading The Department of Commerce Seeks Comment on Its “Particular Market Situation” Practice

Last week, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”) concluded that the Russian Federation will be considered a non-market economy (“NME”) for future antidumping duty (“AD”) proceedings.  This decision reversed the DOC’s 2002 conclusion that Russia was a market economy country, a conclusion that had been reaffirmed by the DOC as recently as 2021.  This decision could have significant consequences for companies importing products from Russia subject to AD orders as, generally speaking, the use of the NME methodology results in higher AD margins.  As a result, companies involved in certain industries, particularly in the steel, fertilizer and chemical sectors, could feel an impact from this decision after it begins to take effect.…

Continue Reading U.S. Commerce Department Concludes Russia Is a Non-Market Economy for Antidumping Proceedings

On June 6, 2022, President Biden issued a declaration of emergency with respect to the availability of electricity generation capacity in the United States, and pursuant to this declaration, authorized the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to permit certain solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam to be temporarily imported without antidumping duty and countervailing duties (“AD/CVD”) in response to an ongoing anticircumvention proceeding.

As background, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) is currently conducting an anticircumvention inquiry into whether imports from these four Southeast Asian countries are circumventing the AD/CVD orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells and modules, i.e., solar cells and panels, from China.  If Commerce makes an affirmative circumvention finding, solar cells and modules manufactured in these countries may be presumed to be subject to the China CSPV AD/CVD orders.  Due to the possibility that high AD/CVD rates could then apply to these imports, many participants in the renewable energy industry were concerned that this investigation could adversely affect the U.S. solar industry, and negatively impact U.S. clean energy efforts.  Questions about the retroactive nature of any tariffs that could be imposed through this anticircumvention proceeding due to the recently modified regulations also have caused uncertainty in the industry, which in turn led several market participants to announce suspensions of U.S. solar projects.…

Continue Reading Biden Administration Suspends Possible Tariffs from Solar Anticircumvention Inquiry

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has recently initiated a statutory four-year review of the two actions taken under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, in the investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation.  The two specific actions under review are the imposition of additional tariffs under Section 301 on products on List 1(covering $34 billion in imports as of 2018) and List 2 ($16 million in imports), which were subsequently modified by the imposition of List 3 and List 4A.

This “review of necessity” is being conducted pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2417(c), which obligates USTR to revoke any action taken under Section 301 after four years unless parties that benefit from that action requests its continuation.  If continuation is requested, USTR is then required to evaluate the “effectiveness in achieving the objectives of Section 301” and the “effects of such actions on the United States economy, including consumers” for any action taken under Section 301.…

Continue Reading USTR Starts “Review of Necessity” of Section 301 Tariffs

It is generally known that EU anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures are usually imposed for a period of five years, and that they can be (and usually are) extended for further five-year periods further to expiry review investigations. Similarly, operators facing trade defense measures will typically be aware that the repeal or the reduction of the duties can be obtained with interim review investigations or duty refund procedures. It is instead far less known that there is another, temporary, and, until very recently, long unexploited solution available to EU importers and end-users to ease the pressure of EU trade defense measures, namely the suspension thereof. This tool can be particularly relevant to EU importers and end-users of goods that are currently suffering from supply chain disruptions.
…
Continue Reading Duty Suspension: An Interim Relief from EU Trade Defense Measures

On February 8, 2022, Auxin Solar Inc. (“Auxin”) filed a request that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) determine whether the antidumping duty and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells and modules, i.e., solar cells and panels, from China are being circumvented.  Auxin alleges that certain Chinese CSPV producers…

2022 is shaping up to be a critical year for the Biden Administration regarding U.S. international trade policy.  In 2021, the Biden Administration made headway in resolving some of the challenges with United States’ allies that arose during the last Administration, and trying to build bridges in important regions that had perhaps had been neglected.  But in a number of other critical areas, and arguably in the most significant areas, the Biden Administration made little tangible progress over the past year.  The discussion below offers a look back at the key developments in 2021 with respect to U.S. trade relations with the EU, China, the rest of Asia and North America, and a look ahead at what could come in 2022.
…
Continue Reading The US International Trade Agenda: A Look Back, A Look Ahead

This is the fourth post in a series regarding the Department of Commerce’s revisions to antidumping/countervailing duty regulations.  Prior blog posts in this series can be found here, here, and here.

On September 20, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”) published a Final Rule, promulgating new regulations which govern inquiries regarding the circumvention of antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) orders.  These new regulations govern any circumvention inquiries for which a circumvention request is filed, as well as any circumvention inquiry self-initiated by DOC, on or after November 4, 2021.  In addition to clarifying the procedures for anticircumvention inquiries, the Final Rule also significantly expands the potential impact of these proceedings, including by expanding the potential imposition of AD/CVD cash deposits, which may now even reach entries prior to the initiation of the anticircumvention inquiry.…

Continue Reading Revisions to AD/CVD Regulations: Circumvention Inquiries

The Final Rule published by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”) on September 20, 2021, makes substantial modifications to the DOC’s regulations on scope proceedings to be conducted under antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) orders.  These new rules amend the scope inquiry process in a number of places, including, among others: giving the DOC discretion to self-initiate a scope inquiry; requiring more detailed information for a scope inquiry application; eliminating the informal scope inquiry procedure; establishing new time limits for the scope inquiry; and giving interested parties additional time to submit comments.  Perhaps most importantly, these new regulations accelerate the timeline for imposing provisional relief against imports believed to fall within the scope of an AD/CVD order, and permit the imposition of an AD/CVD cash deposit requirement on entries made prior to the initiation of a scope inquiry.
…
Continue Reading Revisions to the Department of Commerce’s Antidumping / Countervailing Duty Regulation: Scope Proceedings

Under the Enforce and Protect Act of 2015 (“EAPA”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is authorized to determine whether covered merchandise has entered the United States through evasion, resulting in the reduction or elimination of otherwise applicable antidumping (“AD”) or countervailing duties (“CVD”) on the merchandise.  19 U.S.C. § 1517.  Under the statute, if CBP “is unable to determine whether the merchandise at issue is covered merchandise,” i.e., subject to an AD or CVD order, CBP may “refer the matter to the {U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)} to determine whether the merchandise is covered merchandise” pursuant to Commerce’s authority to make AD/CVD scope determinations.  In Commerce’s new regulations, the agency establishes procedures that will govern its handling of these covered merchandise referrals from CBP.  19 C.F.R. § 351.227.  In doing so, Commerce formalizes what has been an ad hoc approach to these covered merchandise referrals under its existing regulations and establishes covered merchandise inquiries as a distinct proceeding segment alongside scope and anti-circumvention inquiries, which seek to answer similar questions regarding coverage of AD/CVD orders.

As relevant background, CBP’s EAPA investigations focus on the specific question of whether certain imports by particular companies are unlawfully evading applicable ADs and/or CVDs.  These investigations follow allegations of evasion (e.g., fraudulent country of origin markings, misclassification, transshipment, etc.) by interested parties (e.g., other U.S. importers of the covered merchandise, a U.S. producer of the domestic like product, or a trade association) and can result in the imposition of various remedies by CBP.  For example, if CBP determines that there is reasonable suspicion that covered merchandise entered the United States through evasion, it may impose “interim measures” including the suspension of liquidation of unliquidated entries, extension of the period for liquidating unliquidated entries, and an array of other measures (e.g., requiring a single transaction bond or the posting of cash deposits).  Continuation of these remedies is available to CBP following a final determination as to evasion, and CBP may also pursue other recourse (e.g., penalty actions) against the companies subject to investigation.…

Continue Reading Revisions to the Department of Commerce’s Antidumping / Countervailing Duty Regulations: Covered Merchandise Referrals