Antidumping/Countervailing Duties

The U.S. Department of Commerce announced on Wednesday that it is self-initiating an inquiry into whether U.S. imports of corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from Costa Rica, Guatemala, Malaysia, South Africa, or the United Arab Emirates using hot-rolled or cold-rolled substrate from China and Taiwan are circumventing existing antidumping (AD) and countervailing (CVD) duties.  This is

The Enforce and Protect Act (“EAPA”), signed into law as part of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, established procedures for a wide variety of stakeholders to submit allegations of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”).  After several years, it appears this new tool for addressing evasion of duties has started to take off.

CBP’s Trade and Travel Report for Fiscal Year 2018 relates a significant uptick in the agency’s investigative work stemming from EAPA allegations.  In particular, CBP received nearly double the allegations in fiscal year 2018 that it received in fiscal year 2017.  The agency also issued final determinations in 12 investigations, up from only 1 the year before.  Despite the uptick in work, CBP touts having “met every statutory deadline for all EAPA investigations,” even rendering decisions ahead of statutory deadlines in some cases, and proclaims that this process has “proven to be a success{}.”  CBP’s bullish outlook should encourage even more stakeholders to come forward with allegations and to participate in the process.
Continue Reading

Today Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published an updated version of its “Guidance for Reimbursement Certificates”; see https://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/guidance-reimbursement-certificates.

In the memorandum, CBP reminds the public that regulations by the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) require that importers must file a certificate advising whether the importer has entered into an agreement, or otherwise has received reimbursement of AD duties, prior to liquidation of the entry.

Failure to file reimbursement certificates (stating that importer was not reimbursed) may double importer’s antidumping duties upon liquidation.  CBP’s memorandum offers specifics on how to file the certificates and includes an example of a blanket reimbursement form.

The memo also outlines procedures for filing in ACE and ACS.  Although CBP will accept paper reimbursement certificates, it is encouraging importers to file electronically.

CBP addresses other guidelines for filing reimbursement certificates, including the following:
Continue Reading

On May 17, the ITC voted unanimously that dumped imports of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from China, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, and Switzerland are a cause of material injury to the domestic industry.  This vote follows the Commerce Department’s final determinations that imports from producers and exporters in these six countries are being dumped in the

The grain industry is reacting to the “temporary” Chinese preliminary antidumping duty of 178.6% on sorghum shipped from the United States, announced April 17, 2018. Reuters reported that Chinese importers of sorghum, a grain used to create ethanol and feed livestock, have asked the government in Beijing to waive the duties.  After the duties were announced, nearly two dozen ships carrying American sorghum changed course, opting instead for ports in Japan, Saudi Arabia, the Canary Islands, and the Philippines to mitigate losses.  China is now importing relatively large quantities of barley as livestock feed and the Chinese importers who did receive sorghum shipments are selling that grain at an extreme discount in an effort to avoid the duty deposit.

The investigation into U.S. sorghum, initiated in February, found that U.S. exports to China increased over the last several years while prices fell and harmed China’s domestic industry.  The National Sorghum Producers, an industry group in the United States, insists that the product is neither dumped nor injurious to the Chinese industry.  The National Sorghum Producers also state that they fully cooperated with the Chinese government in the course of the short investigation, at the end of which adverse facts available were applied to result in the high margin. 
Continue Reading

On February 14, Senators Gary Peters (D-MI) and Richard Burr (R-NC) jointly introduced the S. 2427, the Self-Initiations Trade Enforcement Act.  If enacted, the legislation would give the Department of Commerce greater leniency to self-initiate investigations of unfair trade practices that harm U.S.  producers by creating a permanent taskforce at the International Trade

On Friday, February 16, 2018, Secretary Ross released public versions of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s reports concerning the agency’s section 232 investigations into the impact on national security of steel and aluminum imports. As a result of its investigations, the Department of Commerce has determined that imports of steel and aluminum “threaten to impair the national security.”

The Secretary’s press release presents the agency’s key findings and lists the agency’s various recommended remedies.  With respect to steel imports, the Department of Commerce recommends three alternative options to the President:

  1. A global tariff of at least 24% on all steel imports from all countries, or
  2. A tariff of at least 53% on all steel imports from 12 countries (Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam) with a quota by product on steel imports from all other countries equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or
  3. A quota on all steel products from all countries equal to 63% of each country’s 2017 exports to the United States.

With respect to aluminum imports, the Department of Commerce recommends three alternative options to the President:
Continue Reading

On January 12, 2018, Australia brought a historical first WTO trade dispute against Canada.  The request for consultations alleges that the Canadian Government and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia (“B.C.”), Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia discriminated against imported Australian wine by maintaining discriminatory trade measures governing  the sale of wine.  The alleged discriminatory measures include:  distribution areas, licensing and sales measures (i.e., product mark-ups), market access and listing policies, and duties and taxes applied at the federal and provincial level. Pursuant to WTO rules, the parties have 60 days to settle the dispute after which time Australia may request adjudication before a WTO panel.

Australian exports of bottled wine to Canada declined by nearly  half between 2007 and 2016.  Australia Trade Minister Steven Ciobo discussed the request for consultations and Australian wine
Continue Reading

Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) denied an appeal by Capella Sales & Services Ltd., an importer of aluminum extrusions from China, in which the company challenged the countervailing duty margin applied to its entries at liquidation, arguing that a lower rate should have been applied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Capella did not participate in U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) 2011-2012 administrative review of aluminum extrusions from China.  As a result, its entries were subject to the 374.15% “all others” rate under the countervailing duty order.  In connection with other litigation, the 374.15% “all others” rate was reduced to 7.37% in October 2015 based on challenges brought by several other importers of aluminum extrusions. 
Continue Reading

On January 10, 2018, Canada circulated to WTO members a request for consultations challenging several aspects of the United States antidumping and countervailing proceedings. The request for consultation is available on the WTO’s website and can be found here.

In particular, Canada challenges:

  1. the way in which the U.S. Department of Commerce refunds cash deposits after adverse WTO determinations;
  2. the United States’ suspension of liquidation of cash deposit requirements when the U.S. Department of Commerce preliminarily determines critical circumstances exist;
  3. the U.S. Department of Commerce’s treatment of certain export measures by foreign governments in the agency’s countervailing duty proceedings;
  4. the U.S. Department of Commerce’s calculation of benefits involving the provision of goods for less than adequate remuneration in the agency’s countervailing duty proceedings; and
  5. the U.S. Department of Commerce’s procedures for collecting evidence in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations.


Continue Reading