United States — Trade Remedies

United States antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) law is administered jointly by two agencies under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The U.S. Department of Commerce (the "administering authority" under the statute) determines whether dumping or subsidization exists and calculates the margin of dumping or the amount of the subsidy. The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) determines whether a U.S. industry is materially injured, threatened with material injury, or materially retarded in its establishment by reason of the dumped or subsidized imports.

Antidumping duties are imposed when two conditions are met under 19 U.S.C. § 1673:

1. Commerce determines that foreign merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than its fair value (i.e., the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price), and
2. The Commission determines that a U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of those imports.

When both findings are affirmative, Commerce issues an antidumping duty order directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess duties equal to the amount by which normal value exceeds the U.S. price.

Countervailing duties are imposed under a parallel framework at 19 U.S.C. § 1671(a) when:

1. Commerce determines that a foreign government or public entity is providing, directly or indirectly, a countervailable subsidy with respect to the manufacture, production, or export of merchandise imported (or likely to be sold for importation) into the United States, and
2. For imports from a WTO Subsidies Agreement country, the Commission determines that a U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of those subsidized imports.

The duty equals the amount of the net countervailable subsidy. Under § 1671(c), for imports from countries not party to the Subsidies Agreement, no Commission injury determination is required and certain procedural safeguards (suspension agreements, critical-circumstances findings) do not apply; Commerce may impose countervailing duties based solely on the subsidy determination.

Procedural division of labor. Investigations are initiated by petition filed simultaneously with Commerce and the ITC by an interested party (domestic producer, union, or trade association representing the industry), or less commonly by Commerce on its own motion. The ITC conducts a preliminary injury determination. Commerce then makes preliminary and final determinations on dumping or subsidization. The ITC's final injury determination follows Commerce's affirmative final determination. Only if both agencies reach affirmative final determinations does an AD or CVD order issue and duties are collected.

Material injury standard. The Commission evaluates the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices in the U.S. market for the domestic like product, and their impact on the domestic industry, considering all relevant economic factors. "Material injury" means harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant. The causation requirement—"by reason of"—demands that the dumped or subsidized imports be a cause of material injury, though not necessarily the sole or principal cause.

Five-year sunset reviews. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c), Commerce must revoke an AD or CVD order after five years unless both agencies determine that revocation would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping/subsidies (Commerce) and material injury (ITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time. If either agency makes a negative determination, the order is revoked.

Recent determination — Non-Oriented Electrical Steel (NOES), May 2026: In its most recent cycle, USITC determined on May 8, 2026, that revoking the CVD orders on NOES from China and Taiwan, and the AD orders on NOES from China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan, would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury, so the orders remain in effect. See 91 Fed. Reg. 27078 (May 13, 2026). The scope of these orders, as set by Commerce and published in the Federal Register, covers specific NOES products—consult the cited order for exact scope definitions and HTSUS coverage. The next scheduled sunset review for these orders will be initiated by 2031 unless an intervening changed-circumstances or administrative review occurs.

Judicial review. Final determinations by Commerce and the USITC in AD/CVD investigations may be appealed to the U.S. Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). For goods from Canada or Mexico, parties may instead elect binational-panel review under USMCA Article 10.12.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1673) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1671) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1675 Source: USITC, Understanding Antidumping & Countervailing Duty Investigations Source: 91 Fed. Reg. 27078 (May 13, 2026)

The dumping margin is the amount by which the normal value of subject merchandise exceeds its export price or constructed export price when sold for export to the United States. This margin, expressed as a percentage, becomes the antidumping duty rate that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assesses on entries once an AD order is in effect. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35), the "weighted average dumping margin" is the percentage determined by dividing the aggregate dumping margins for a specific exporter or producer by the aggregate export prices (and constructed export prices) of all subject merchandise for that exporter or producer.

Three statutory comparison methods. Commerce compares normal value to export price / constructed export price using one of three methods authorized by 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d) and detailed in 19 C.F.R. § 351.414:

1. Average-to-average — weighted average of normal values compared to weighted average of export prices (and constructed export prices) for comparable merchandise. This is the default method in investigations and reviews unless Commerce determines another method is appropriate in a particular case. 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(c)(1).

1. Transaction-to-transaction — normal value of individual transactions compared to export price (or constructed export price) of individual transactions for comparable merchandise. Commerce uses this method only in unusual situations, such as when there are very few sales of subject merchandise and the merchandise sold in each market is identical, very similar, or custom-made. 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(c)(2).

1. Average-to-transaction — weighted average of normal values compared to export prices (or constructed export prices) of individual transactions for comparable merchandise. This method may be used when Commerce finds a pattern of export prices (or constructed export prices) that differ significantly among purchasers, regions, or time periods, and the differences cannot reasonably be taken into account using the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction method. 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B); 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(b)(3).

Averaging groups and the average-to-average method. When applying the default average-to-average method in an investigation, Commerce constructs "averaging groups" consisting of subject merchandise that is identical or virtually identical in all physical characteristics and that is sold to the United States at the same level of trade. Commerce also considers, where appropriate, the region of the United States in which the merchandise is sold and such other factors as the agency deems relevant. 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(d)(2). For each averaging group, Commerce calculates a weighted average of the export prices and constructed export prices of the sales included in the group, and compares that weighted average to the weighted average of the normal values of such sales. 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(d)(1).

Under § 351.414(d)(3), when applying the average-to-average method in an investigation, Commerce normally calculates weighted averages for the entire period of investigation (POI). However, when normal values, export prices, or constructed export prices differ significantly over the course of the POI, Commerce may calculate weighted averages for such shorter period as the agency deems appropriate. In administrative reviews, Commerce normally calculates weighted averages on a monthly basis and compares the weighted-average monthly export price or constructed export price to the weighted-average normal value for the contemporaneous month.

Individual margins versus sampling. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1), Commerce must determine the individual weighted average dumping margin for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. However, if it is not practicable to make individual determinations because of the large number of exporters or producers involved in the investigation or review, Commerce may determine the weighted average dumping margins for a reasonable number of exporters or producers by limiting its examination to (A) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection, or (B) exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be reasonably examined. § 1677f-1(c)(2).

When Commerce employs sampling or limits the number of respondents examined, it calculates an "all-others" rate for exporters and producers not individually examined. That rate is typically a weighted average of the individually calculated rates, excluding any zero and de minimis margins and any rates determined entirely on the basis of facts available.

Margin for individual transactions. For any individual comparison (whether transaction-to-transaction or within an averaging group), Commerce computes the margin by subtracting the export price or constructed export price from the normal value. When the result is positive, dumping exists for that comparison; when the result is zero or negative, no dumping exists for that sale. The aggregate of the positive margins across all comparisons, divided by the aggregate export prices, yields the weighted average dumping margin for the exporter or producer.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)–(d) Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.414

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 2411–2420 and collectively referred to as "Section 301" — provides the principal statutory authority under which the United States Trade Representative (USTR) may investigate and impose trade sanctions (including additional tariffs, quota restrictions, or withdrawal of trade-agreement concessions) on foreign countries that violate U.S. rights under trade agreements or engage in acts, policies, or practices that are "unjustifiable," "unreasonable," or "discriminatory" and that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Unlike antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, which focus on pricing behavior by exporters or producers, Section 301 addresses foreign government conduct — e.g., forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, discriminatory licensing, market-access barriers, subsidies, digital-services taxes, and industrial overcapacity — and authorizes the United States to act unilaterally if negotiations fail.

The statute defines "commerce" broadly to include goods, services, and investment, so Section 301 investigations may target not only merchandise trade barriers but also services restrictions, discriminatory regulation of U.S. technology companies, and investment-screening regimes. 19 U.S.C. § 2411(d)(1).

Three statutory triggers for mandatory or discretionary action. Under 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a), USTR must determine whether:

1. Mandatory action is required because (A) the rights of the United States under a trade agreement are being denied, or (B) an act, policy, or practice of a foreign government is "unjustifiable" (violates or is inconsistent with U.S. international legal rights, or would violate such rights if the United States took comparable action) and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce;

1. Discretionary action is authorized because an act, policy, or practice of a foreign government is "unreasonable" or "discriminatory" and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. "Unreasonable" is defined to include acts that, while not necessarily violating international law, are unfair and inequitable — examples listed in § 2411(d)(3)(B) include denials of fair and equitable market opportunities, worker rights violations, denial of intellectual property protection, export targeting, and tolerance of systematic anti-competitive activities by private firms.

Action is mandatory under subsection (a)(1) if USTR makes an affirmative determination under trigger 1; action is discretionary under subsection (b)(1) if USTR makes an affirmative determination under trigger 2.

Initiation of investigations. An investigation may be initiated in two ways under 19 U.S.C. § 2412:

• Petition by an interested party (domestic producer, union, trade association, or services provider). USTR must determine within 45 days whether to initiate an investigation; the statute does not specify criteria for this decision, so USTR has broad discretion.

• Self-initiation by USTR at the direction of the President or on its own motion. Self-initiation has been the mechanism for most high-profile investigations since 2017, including the 2017–2018 China technology-transfer investigation (which resulted in tariffs on approximately $370 billion of U.S. imports from China), the 2020 EU aircraft subsidies investigation, and the March 2026 investigations into industrial excess capacity (16 trading partners) and forced labor (59 trading partners).

Procedural requirements. Upon initiation, USTR must request consultations with the foreign government. For cases involving a trade agreement, USTR is required to request formal dispute-settlement proceedings under the agreement (e.g., WTO dispute settlement, USMCA state-to-state dispute panels). 19 U.S.C. § 2413(a). The statute provides for public notice, a public hearing, and opportunity for written comment. 19 U.S.C. § 2412(b)(2). Investigations are conducted by a Section 301 Committee established under 15 C.F.R. § 2002.3, a subordinate staff-level body of the Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Available remedies. If USTR determines action is required or appropriate, § 2411(c)(1) authorizes the Trade Representative to:

• Impose duties or other import restrictions on goods or services of the foreign country;
• Withdraw or suspend trade-agreement concessions (e.g., tariff bindings, quota commitments);
• Enter into a binding agreement with the foreign government to eliminate the conduct in question or compensate the United States with satisfactory trade benefits.

Actions may be taken on a non-discriminatory (MFN) basis or targeted solely against the products and services of the offending country. The statute specifies that actions may be taken "within the power of the President with respect to trade in any goods or services, or with respect to any other area of pertinent relations with the foreign country." 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)(1)(B)(ii), (b)(2).

Four-year automatic termination and review. Section 301 actions terminate automatically after four years unless USTR receives a request for continuation and conducts a review of the action. 19 U.S.C. § 2417(c)(2); see also 19 C.F.R. § 2006.3. This "sunset review" examines whether the foreign act, policy, or practice continues and whether termination of the action would harm U.S. commerce. In May 2024, USTR completed the four-year review of the China technology-transfer tariffs imposed in 2018–2019 and determined to maintain the tariffs and to increase rates on certain strategic products — electric vehicles (to 100%), lithium-ion EV batteries (to 25%, rising to 35% by 2026), semiconductors (to 50% by 2025), solar cells and modules (to 50%), and steel and aluminum products (to 25%) — with the increased rates taking effect on September 27, 2024, and January 1, 2025, or 2026, depending on the product. 89 Fed. Reg. 76,472 (Sept. 13, 2024).

Product exclusions. USTR may establish a process for importers to request exclusion of specific products from Section 301 additional duties. For the China technology-transfer tariffs, USTR maintained a general exclusion process through 2020 for Lists 1–4A, granted over 2,200 initial exclusions and extended 549, then allowed most to expire. In 2024, USTR established a new, narrower exclusion process limited to machinery used in domestic manufacturing classified in HTS Chapters 84 and 85; granted exclusions are effective only through May 31, 2025. 89 Fed. Reg. 76,472, at 76,478–76,479.

Relationship to WTO dispute settlement. Although the WTO Dispute Settlement Body ruled in 1999 that taking Section 301 actions against WTO member countries without first securing WTO authorization would violate U.S. obligations under the Dispute Settlement Understanding, the United States continues to assert the legal authority to impose Section 301 tariffs unilaterally. From 1995 to 2017, the United States used Section 301 primarily to build WTO cases and pursue WTO dispute settlement. Since 2017, the executive branch has increasingly used Section 301 to impose tariffs outside the WTO dispute-settlement process, particularly against China.

Current Section 301 tariffs in force (as of June 2026). The principal active Section 301 tariff measures are:

• China — Lists 1, 2, 3, and 4A (technology-transfer investigation): additional duties of 7.5% to 100% (depending on product and list) on approximately $370 billion of annual imports. Lists are organized by HTS subheading and published in Federal Register notices and on USTR's website. As of March 2026, tariffs remain in force following the May 2024 four-year review. Importers must determine whether their HTS classification appears on any list and add the applicable Section 301 duty to the normal-trade-relations (MFN) rate and any other applicable duties (Section 232, Section 201, or China-specific measures such as reciprocal or fentanyl tariffs).

Active investigations. As of March 2026, USTR has four ongoing investigations: (1) Brazil's acts, policies, and practices related to digital trade, anti-corruption enforcement, intellectual property, ethanol, and deforestation (initiated 2025); (2) China's implementation of the January 15, 2020, Phase One Economic and Trade Agreement (initiated October 2025); (3) industrial excess capacity in 14 countries plus the European Union (initiated March 11, 2026); and (4) forced labor practices in 59 countries plus the European Union (initiated March 2026). Congressional Research Service, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, IF11346 (updated Mar. 13, 2026).

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2411) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2412) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2413) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2417) Source: 15 C.F.R. § 2002.3 Source: 89 Fed. Reg. 76,472 (Sept. 13, 2024) — USTR Section 301 Four-Year Review Final Determination Source: Congressional Research Service, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, IF11346 (Mar. 13, 2026)

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. § 1862) remains the core authority permitting the President to adjust imports that threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Since the last update, there have been material statutory and procedural changes, as well as major new presidential proclamations affecting Section 232 administration and tariff structure.

Recent Proclamations and Developments (2026):

• New Covered Sectors (Effective 2026):
• In January 2026, the President issued Section 232 proclamations extending the national security provisions to (i) semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and (ii) processed critical minerals and their derivative products. These investigations, under Commerce, resulted in determinations published in Federal Register notices and presidential directives requiring ongoing negotiation, reporting, and the possibility of future tariff imposition. (See White House, Jan. 2026 proclamations.)

• Metals Tariff Overhaul — Proclamation 11021 (Effective April 6, 2026):
• The structure of Section 232 tariffs was extensively revised by Proclamation 11021. Key changes include:
• Tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper products now apply to the "full customs value" of covered imports, regardless of metal content, for entries on or after April 6, 2026.
• Tiered tariff rates are implemented: up to 50% (maximum), down to 25%, 15%, and 10%. The applicable rate depends on the origin and certified U.S.-content level (e.g., reduced rates for USMCA and certain FTA partners, and additional certification-based tiers).
• The process for defining and including derivative products was completely overhauled; a definitive schedule and product list are maintained in the Federal Register and updated by Commerce.
• These provisions supersede prior rate and product-scope rules for covered metals and derivative items, but Proclamation 11032 (2026) remains relevant for country-specific or product‑specific exclusions still in force. All product exclusions and quota arrangements issued before April 6, 2026, must be reassessed against the new structure.

• Procedural Framework and Administration:
• The Commerce Department remains responsible for investigations and recommendations. New sectors (semiconductors, critical minerals) are subject to ongoing consultation, with a mandatory Commerce report due July 1, 2026.
• Product-exclusion and country-exclusion lists are now more frequently updated, and are only valid if re-published or explicitly grandfathered under the current structure.

• No Change in Statutory Standard:
• The statutory definition of "impairment of national security" and the procedural requirements for Commerce investigations remain unchanged at 19 U.S.C. § 1862 and 15 C.F.R. Part 705. The breadth of presidential discretion for remedy selection—including the types and durations of import adjustments—is reaffirmed by recent court decisions.

Unable to confirm as of 2026-06-10: the current product exclusion status for entries made before April 6, 2026, and all rates for newly covered semiconductor and critical mineral products pending Commerce's July 2026 report.

Authority for 2026 revisions:

• 19 U.S.C. § 1862)
• 15 C.F.R. Part 705
• Presidential Proclamation 11021 (2026)
• White House Proclamation – Semiconductors (Jan. 2026)
• White House Proclamation – Critical Minerals (Jan. 2026)

These developments represent a material change from the prior regime. Section content should be revisited and further updated following Commerce's July 2026 report and subsequent Federal Register notices.

Normal value is the benchmark against which Commerce compares the export price or constructed export price to determine whether subject merchandise is being sold in the United States at less than fair value (i.e., whether dumping exists). Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(A), normal value is ordinarily "the price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price or constructed export price," at a time reasonably corresponding to the time of the U.S. sale.

Three statutory bases for normal value. When sufficient sales of the foreign like product exist in the exporting country, Commerce calculates normal value based on those home-market sales. When the home market does not constitute a viable market or sales in the exporting country cannot be used, Commerce may determine normal value based on either (1) sales of the foreign like product to a third country, or (2) constructed value. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)–(C); 19 C.F.R. § 351.404(a).

Home-market sales (first preference)

The default method for determining normal value is based on prices of sales of the foreign like product in the exporting country. Under 19 C.F.R. § 351.404(b), Commerce will consider the exporting country as constituting a viable market if sales of the foreign like product in that country are of sufficient quantity. "Sufficient quantity" normally means that the aggregate quantity (or value) of the foreign like product sold by the exporter or producer in the home market is 5 percent or more of the aggregate quantity (or value) of its sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. 19 C.F.R. § 351.404(b)(2).

When the exporting country constitutes a viable market, Commerce calculates normal value using home-market prices, subject to certain statutory exclusions and adjustments. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(1), Commerce must exclude from the calculation of normal value any sale in the exporting country that fails at least one of three conditions:

1. Usual commercial quantities — the sale must involve quantities that are usual in the trade;
2. Ordinary course of trade — the sale must be in the ordinary course of trade (a term that includes whether the sale was made at a price below the cost of production, as addressed separately in § 1677b(b) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.406);
3. Same level of trade — to the extent practicable, the sale must be at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale (if Commerce cannot find home-market sales at the same level of trade, Commerce may use sales at a different level of trade and make a level-of-trade adjustment under 19 C.F.R. § 351.412).

Commerce also disregards sales made to establish a fictitious market. No sale or offer for sale intended to establish a fictitious market may be taken into account in determining normal value. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1). For example, if after issuance of an antidumping duty order the prices at which different forms of the foreign like product are sold in the exporting country move in patterns that appear designed to reduce the dumping margin, Commerce may treat those price movements as evidence of a fictitious market. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2).

Third-country sales (second preference)

When the home market is not viable or Commerce determines that home-market sales cannot be used, Commerce may calculate normal value based on sales of the foreign like product to a third country (any country other than the exporting country and the United States). 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B); 19 C.F.R. § 351.404(a), (e).

Commerce will use third-country sales rather than constructed value if adequate information regarding such sales is available and verifiable. Under current regulations, however, Commerce normally will calculate normal value based on constructed value rather than on third-country sales. 19 C.F.R. § 351.404(f). This regulatory preference reflects Commerce's determination that constructed value—which is based on the actual costs of production, selling expenses, and profit—typically provides a more accurate and comparable benchmark than third-country prices, which may involve products that are similar but not identical to the products sold in the United States. See 81 Fed. Reg. 54,329 (Aug. 15, 2016) (proposed rule explaining rationale for preferring constructed value).

Constructed value (third preference)

When neither home-market nor third-country sales provide an appropriate basis for normal value, Commerce determines normal value by constructing a value under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.405. Constructed value is the sum of:

1. Cost of materials and fabrication (or other processing of any kind) employed in producing the foreign like product;
2. Selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) incurred in connection with the sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for home-market consumption, plus
3. Profit on such sales.

Commerce calculates the cost of materials and fabrication under 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 based on records kept by the exporter or producer in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country, to the extent such records reasonably reflect the costs of producing the merchandise. SG&A and profit are normally calculated based on the exporter's or producer's own home-market experience selling the foreign like product. If such data are not available, Commerce may use (in order of preference) the experience of other exporters or producers in the same country, or any other reasonable method, including data from other countries. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B).

Adjustments for fair comparison

Regardless of the basis for normal value (home market, third country, or constructed value), Commerce makes adjustments to normal value under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(6) to ensure a fair comparison with the export price or constructed export price. Such adjustments may include:

• Differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise (19 C.F.R. § 351.411);
• Differences in quantities sold (19 C.F.R. § 351.409);
• Differences in circumstances of sale, such as credit terms, warranties, technical assistance, commissions, and other selling expenses (19 C.F.R. § 351.410);
• Differences in levels of trade (19 C.F.R. § 351.412);
• Movement expenses (packing, freight, insurance, and handling) from the production facility to the place of delivery in the home market or third country, to achieve parity with movement expenses deducted from the U.S. price (19 C.F.R. § 351.401(e)).

Commerce uses a price net of price adjustments. Under 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(c), Commerce normally will not accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale unless the interested party demonstrates entitlement to such adjustment—a safeguard to prevent exporters from eliminating dumping margins through post hoc rebates or discounts.

Non-market-economy countries (alternative methodology)

For merchandise from a non-market-economy (NME) country such as the People's Republic of China or Vietnam, Commerce applies a fundamentally different methodology under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.408. Because prices and costs in NME countries may not reflect market values, Commerce values the factors of production (raw materials, labor, energy, factory overhead, and SG&A) using prices or costs in a market-economy country that is (1) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Commerce then adds an amount for profit based on market-economy experience. This "factors-of-production" or "surrogate-value" methodology results in a constructed normal value that substitutes market-economy input prices for the NME producer's actual reported costs.

Commerce may also disregard NME price or cost values if broadly available export subsidies existed or if the price or cost values were themselves subject to an antidumping order. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1)(C).

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1677b Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.401 Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.404 Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.405

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §§ 2251–2254), implemented by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) under 19 C.F.R. Part 206, Subpart B, authorizes the President to provide temporary import relief—tariffs, quotas, or tariff-rate quotas—where the USITC determines that increased imports are a substantial cause of serious injury to a domestic industry, even if the imports are fairly traded. Section 201, often called the “global safeguard” or “escape clause,” is a GATT Article XIX mechanism that temporarily suspends normal WTO tariff obligations when a surge in fairly traded imports seriously injures a domestic industry.

Expiration of major safeguard action — Solar panels (TA-201-75). The most prominent Section 201 safeguard in the past decade—tariff and tariff-rate quota relief on crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells and modules—terminated effective February 6, 2026, after the full permitted period (original four years starting February 2018, plus two one-year extensions and a final one-year modification). No further extensions are authorized under statute. This means, as of February 2026, no Section 201 tariff applies to imports of solar cells and modules. The USITC’s March 2025 review and final presidential proclamation concluded the safeguard period. See USITC and Presidential notifications for withdrawal of relief.

Active Section 201 investigation — Quartz surface products (TA-201-79). As of June 2026, a new Section 201 investigation into quartz surface products (USITC Inv. No. TA-201-79) is pending. The USITC made its injury determination April 1, 2026, finding serious injury. On May 5, 2026, the Commission issued a remedy recommendation to the President proposing a four-year tariff-rate quota (TRQ): imports below a quarterly in-quota threshold would be subject to a 25% tariff; imports above quota would bear a 40% tariff. The remedy structure and product coverage is detailed in the USITC’s public report and Federal Register notices. However, as of the most recent updates, the President has NOT yet announced or implemented a safeguard remedy for quartz surface products, and no new HTS Chapter 99 codes (safeguard tariff lines) have taken effect.

Other Section 201 case status. The earlier safeguard on large residential washers (TA-201-76) expired according to statute. The fine denier polyester staple fiber (TA-201-78) safeguard remains at the remedy-recommendation stage. No new relief is active as of June 2026.

Statutory framework and process unchanged. The substantive standards, time limits, and procedural steps for Section 201 (initiation, injury standard, Presidential discretion, maximum eight-year period, required phasedown, and WTO compensation/retaliation procedures) remain as described in the cited statutes and regulations.

Key authority and USITC resources:

• 19 U.S.C. §§ 2251–2254 (global safeguard statute)
• 19 C.F.R. Part 206, Subpart B (USITC regulations)
• USITC, “Understanding Section 201 Safeguard Investigations”
• USITC, Fact Sheet: “Global Safeguard Investigations”
• USITC public reports and most recent Federal Register notices on solar, quartz, and polyester staple fiber safeguards

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2251) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2252) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2253) Source: 19 C.F.R. Part 206, Subpart B Source: USITC, Understanding Section 201 Safeguard Investigations Source: USITC, Fact Sheets: USITC Global Safeguard Investigations

After an antidumping (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) order issues, duty liability for each entry is subject to possible adjustment through the process of administrative review and liquidation. When an importer makes an entry of merchandise subject to an AD/CVD order, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) collects a cash deposit of estimated duties at the rate in effect on the date of entry (19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a)(3), § 1671e(a)(3)). However, this deposit is only an estimate: the actual final duty owed is determined later, following Commerce’s review procedures under 19 U.S.C. § 1675.

Annual administrative reviews. Each year (during the anniversary month of the AD/CVD order), any interested party—including importers, foreign producers/exporters, and domestic petitioners—may request an administrative review by Commerce. A request must be filed within the anniversary month; absent a request, entries are liquidated at the cash deposit rate ("automatic assessment"). If requested, Commerce examines entries for the specified period (normally the prior fiscal year), calculates actual AD/CVD liability based on verified sales and costing data, and publishes final results. 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a), 19 C.F.R. § 351.213.

Liquidation and cash deposit recalibration. Once Commerce issues a final administrative review determination, CBP "liquidates" (finalizes) the duty owed for each entry in the review period using the newly calculated rate. If the assessment rate exceeds the cash deposit, the importer must pay the difference, plus interest; if it is lower, the importer receives a refund, plus interest (19 U.S.C. § 1677g).

New shipper reviews and changed circumstance reviews. A new exporter or producer not previously examined may request a "new shipper review" under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2); Commerce determines an individual rate for such companies. "Changed circumstances" reviews under § 1675(b) allow updating or revoking an order or agreement based on significant changes in facts.

Liquidation timing and suspension. Generally, CBP must liquidate entries within one year (19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)), but liquidation is suspended for entries subject to an AD/CVD review. Once Commerce instructs CBP to liquidate, CBP has six months to act (19 C.F.R. § 351.212). During ongoing reviews or litigation, liquidation may be further suspended until the process concludes (19 C.F.R. § 356.8).

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1675 Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.213 Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.212 Source: 19 C.F.R. § 356.8

When a party seeks to challenge a final determination in a U.S. antidumping (AD), countervailing duty (CVD), or other trade-remedy proceeding, judicial review is available by filing suit at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. This covers final determinations and orders issued by the Department of Commerce (Commerce), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in AD/CVD investigations and administrative reviews, as well as safeguard and Section 301 actions in specific instances.

Who may file, and what can be challenged? "Interested parties"—domestic producers, importers, exporters, or foreign producers that participated in the underlying administrative proceedings—may contest agency determinations (final or, in limited cases, preliminary) covered under § 1516a(a)(2)(B). The complaint must be filed within 30 days (AD/CVD and safeguard cases) or 15 days (Section 301 cases) after publication of the contested determination in the Federal Register. The defendant is "the United States"; Commerce, ITC, or CBP is represented by the Department of Justice.

Standard of review. The CIT reviews for whether agency determinations are (1) supported by substantial evidence on the record, and (2) otherwise in accordance with law (19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)). If a procedural deficiency, misapplication of statute or regulation, or arbitrary or capricious conduct is found, the court may remand. The CIT does not substitute its own factual findings but evaluates whether the agency's decision is reasonable in light of the record as a whole. The CIT may review questions presented by the administrative record ("record review"), not new factual evidence, except in rare remand circumstances.

Parties and intervention. Other parties meeting "interested party" status and who were parties to the administrative proceeding may intervene as of right (28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)), subject to filing deadlines (within 30 days after service of the complaint). The government of the country whose products are subject to the determination may also intervene.

Remedy and remand. The CIT may affirm, remand, or reverse the agency's decision. Remand is frequent: if the court identifies legal error or lack of substantial evidence, it grants Commerce or the ITC an opportunity to correct the determination. The timing for the agency's remand results is set by the court but is commonly 60 to 90 days. The CIT then reviews the agency's response; parties may file comments ("remand briefs").

Appeals. Final decisions of the CIT in trade remedy cases may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). The CAFC reviews CIT legal conclusions de novo and agency factual determinations for substantial evidence, in accordance with the same standards as the CIT.

Special Binational Panel Review. For AD/CVD determinations involving imports from Canada or Mexico, as an alternative to CIT review, parties may request binational panel review under USMCA Chapter 10. This must be elected within defined time limits (see USMCA Article 10.12).

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1516a Source: 28 U.S.C. § 2631

The "critical circumstances" mechanism under United States antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) law authorizes the retroactive application of duties to entries of merchandise when there is a surge in imports after an investigation is initiated but before the suspension of liquidation, to address "beat the order" imports. This provision is codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e) (AD) and § 1671b(e) (CVD) for preliminary determinations, and at §§ 1673d(a)(3), 1671d(a)(3) for final determinations. The relevant procedural standards are set in 19 C.F.R. § 351.206.

For Commerce to find critical circumstances, the following statutory requirements apply:

(1) For AD cases:

• There must be either (A) a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (B) the importer knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the goods at less than fair value and material injury by reason of such sales was likely.
• There has been massive imports over a relatively short period.

(2) For CVD cases:

• The same requirements apply as in AD, but for CVD, in addition, the subsidy in question must be a "prohibited subsidy," as defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5B).

Commerce conducts this inquiry if an allegation is timely—no later than 20 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the investigation, unless good cause is shown, as specified in § 351.206(c). Commerce will examine import levels before and after the filing or initiation of a petition to determine whether there has been a surge (the regulation allows Commerce to set reasonable comparison periods based on the record; it does not set a fixed percentage increase as a threshold).

If Commerce makes an affirmative preliminary or final critical circumstances determination and the International Trade Commission (ITC) also finds affirmative material injury at final, duties will be retroactively applied to unliquidated entries made up to 90 days prior to the start of suspension of liquidation that follows the preliminary determination (19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(e)(2), 1671b(e)(2); 19 C.F.R. § 351.206).

This statutory retroactivity presents significant risk for importers, as goods entered before an expected suspension of liquidation may nonetheless become subject to additional AD or CVD duties if covered by a critical circumstances finding. Monitoring Federal Register notices and Commerce determinations is critical, though not a statutory requirement.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(e) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1671b(e) Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.206

Scope rulings are formal determinations by the Department of Commerce deciding whether a specific product falls within the scope of an antidumping (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) order. Accurate scope interpretation is vital for importers, producers, and customs brokers, as AD/CVD liability depends entirely on whether merchandise is considered "subject merchandise." The governing regulation is 19 C.F.R. § 351.225.

Who may request a scope ruling and how. Under § 351.225(c), any interested party—including importers, exporters, foreign producers, petitioners, trade associations—may request a scope ruling after an order or suspension agreement issues. Requests must be in writing, accompanied by a detailed description of the product at issue, and follow the filing procedures stated in § 351.225(c). Commerce may also self-initiate a scope inquiry.

Initiation and timing. Upon receiving a request or self-initiating, Commerce must determine whether to conduct a formal inquiry (§ 351.225(e)). If it initiates, Commerce will begin an inquiry and, according to § 351.225(e), must issue a final ruling within 120 days of initiation unless the matter is "extraordinarily complicated," in which case an extension may be granted. These deadlines may be further extended under § 351.225(e)(2). Parties may submit factual information and written argument subject to regulatory timelines (§ 351.225(f)-(h)).

Legal standard and methodology. Commerce begins with the language of the order itself (§ 351.225(k)). If the terms are unambiguous, the analysis ends there. If ambiguity remains, Commerce examines the sources enumerated in § 351.225(k)(1)—the petition, the investigation, and prior determinations. If these are inconclusive, Commerce evaluates additional “(k)(2)” factors, including (A) the product’s physical characteristics, (B) expectations of purchasers, (C) ultimate use, (D) channels of trade, and (E) manner of advertisement or display, as detailed in § 351.225(k)(2). This framework builds on judicial decisions (notably Duferco Steel Inc. v. United States) and is now codified in the regulation.

Suspension of liquidation and appeals. Per § 351.225(l), if Commerce initiates a formal scope inquiry, it instructs CBP to suspend liquidation of unliquidated entries of products subject to the inquiry and require a cash deposit at the AD or CVD rate, effective as of the initiation date, until Commerce completes the ruling. Final scope rulings are binding on U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Adversely affected parties may challenge a scope ruling at the U.S. Court of International Trade under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi).

Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.225 Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi)

Adverse Facts Available (AFA) is the statutory mechanism by which the U.S. Department of Commerce assigns antidumping (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) margins when a party does not provide complete or verifiable information in an investigation or review. The authority for AFA is in 19 U.S.C. § 1677e, implemented through 19 C.F.R. § 351.308. This rule is a core risk factor for importers and exporters—non-cooperation can result in Commerce assigning an adverse rate, sometimes based on petition claims or prior agency determinations.

Statutory structure. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a), Commerce will use "facts otherwise available" when necessary information is unavailable or where an interested party: (1) withholds information, (2) fails to provide information by the established deadlines, (3) significantly impedes the proceeding, or (4) provides information that cannot be verified. If Commerce further finds that the party "has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability," it may use information that is adverse to that party—AFA—to select among the facts otherwise available. This FA/AFA process is codified in 19 C.F.R. § 351.308.

"Best of its ability" and adverse inferences. The expectation is that parties provide full, timely, and accurate submissions; less than maximum effort constitutes non-cooperation. If Commerce applies AFA, it may rely on information from the petition, a final determination, a prior segment, or any other reasonable source—subject to the constraints outlined in the statute and regulation (19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)–(d); 19 C.F.R. § 351.308(c)). Commerce may select an inference adverse to a party’s interests to promote full disclosure and ensure the proceedings are not undermined by lack of cooperation, though the statute states such inferences are intended to encourage compliance rather than to punish.

Process and judicial review. Commerce must explain its use of AFA and the information chosen, and parties may challenge AFA decisions in the U.S. Court of International Trade, which reviews for reasonableness and substantial evidence. While Commerce has broad discretion, courts have required a factual explanation for why a party did not act to the best of its ability.

Practice note. AFA is not applied automatically—Commerce must first determine both a lack of information and that the party did not act to the best of its ability. The content and timeliness of responses, verification, and cooperation throughout the proceeding are essential. Application of AFA often results in significantly higher margins than would otherwise apply, but the specific rate selected depends on the record and is not specified in the statute.

Statute and regulation current as of June 2026.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1677e Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.308

The "particular market situation" (PMS) adjustment allows the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) to disregard reported costs or prices in the exporting country when determining normal value in antidumping (AD) cases—specifically where those values are distorted by unusual market conditions. The core statutory authority is 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e) and (f). Prior to 2015, "PMS" appeared only in the cost-of-production (COP) test, but the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 clarified that Commerce could disregard costs in constructing normal value where a PMS was found affecting the COP.

The statute itself does not enumerate what constitutes a "particular market situation." By its terms, a PMS exists "where the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade." Commerce has, in practice, made PMS findings in cases involving significant government intervention or distortion of key input markets, such as subsidies on raw materials, pervasive state-ownership, or non-arms-length energy pricing. Specific PMS allegations or determinations have typically arisen in steel and chemical sector investigations since the mid-2010s, often with supporting factual findings published in Federal Register notices or administrative memoranda.

The application of PMS adjustments underwent new judicial scrutiny in Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, 19 F.4th 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Federal Circuit held that, under the statute as amended, Commerce may apply PMS adjustments in its cost-of-production test for disregarding sales, but may not simply adjust normal value directly for a PMS in calculating dumping margins for market-economy exporters. In summary, "the statute limits Commerce’s authority to account for a PMS to the calculation of cost of production for the sales-below-cost test; Congress did not authorize Commerce to use a PMS adjustment in the normal value calculation for sales above cost." (Hyundai Steel, at 1353.) Post-Hyundai Steel, Commerce applies PMS cost adjustments only when performing the below-cost sales test (not uniformly to all normal value calculations), unless the statute is further amended.

Procedurally, any interested party may allege a PMS during a proceeding. Commerce must explain any affirmative PMS finding and detail its adjustment methodology in its published determination. Parties may seek judicial review of the agency’s PMS decision at the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)-(f) Source: Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, 19 F.4th 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2021)

A trade-remedy case in the United States begins with a petition—filed simultaneously with the Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)—alleging that dumped (antidumping, AD) or subsidized (countervailing duty, CVD) imports materially injure a U.S. industry. The petition process is governed by 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671a (CVD) and 1673a (AD) and is the procedural gateway: failing to meet petition requirements or industry support thresholds will result in immediate dismissal.

Who can file. Eligible petitioners (“interested parties”) are defined at 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9): U.S. manufacturers, producers, or wholesalers of the domestic like product; labor unions or worker groups representing employees engaged in production; trade or business associations (majority of members eligible); and, for CVDs, a coalition of such parties. Foreign governments and importers generally do not have standing.

Petition content. The petition must:

• Be in writing and filed with both Commerce and the USITC;
• Identify the merchandise and country(ies) of export;
• Set forth the elements alleging an actionable practice (dumping or specific subsidy—see §§ 1677(5), 1677(6)), the industry harmed, material injury, and causal link;
• Include reasonably available supporting information (production, sales volumes, price comparisons, subsidy details, and injury data); and
• Be accompanied by documentary evidence to the extent feasible. Commerce may dismiss a petition for insufficient information or failure to properly allege each statutory element (see § 1673a(b), § 1671a(b)).

Industry support/standing. To proceed, the petition must show sufficient industry backing:

• At least 25% of total domestic production of the like product (numerator: supporters’ output; denominator: all U.S. production);
• More than 50% support among those producers or workers expressing a position (supporting minus opposing); and
• Related parties and importers can be disregarded from the support calculation to prevent distortion (§§ 1671a(c)(4)(B), 1673a(c)(4)(B)).

If Commerce lacks sufficient evidence of support, it must poll or otherwise determine support within 20 days (§§ 1671a(c)(4), 1673a(c)(4)). A petition lacking the statutory threshold requires dismissal.

Simultaneous filing and notification. Petitions must be filed with the USITC at the same time as Commerce. Commerce must notify the ITC and publish notice of initiation within 20 days of a properly filed petition.

Thoroughness at petition is crucial—an insufficient petition, or weak industry support, is fatal to a case regardless of downstream merits.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1671a Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1673a Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9)

Suspension agreements are arrangements authorized by U.S. trade-remedy law permitting the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to suspend antidumping (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) investigations if certain statutory criteria are met. The core authority is found in 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671c (CVD) and 1673c (AD), with procedural rules in 19 C.F.R. § 351.208. These agreements are distinct from typical AD/CVD orders: instead of imposing duties, Commerce and parties (foreign governments or exporters) agree to alternative measures that address alleged unfair trading practices or injury to the U.S. industry.

Statutory framework — what can be suspended, and how:

• Commerce may suspend an investigation if (A) the government of the exporting country (for CVD investigations), or exporters/producers (AD), enter into an agreement to (i) eliminate completely the injurious effect of the imports (quantitative restrictions, export minimum prices, or the elimination of subsidies), or (ii) cease exports.
• For AD, additional authority exists for “price undertakings,” under which exporters agree to revise their prices upward to eliminate dumping margins as found by Commerce.
• No agreement is effective unless (1) Commerce is satisfied the injurious effect or unfair practice will be eliminated, (2) the agreement is “in the public interest,” and (3) parties who account for "substantially all" imports (or production) of the subject merchandise are signatories. Public comment is required (notice and comment invited in the Federal Register) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) consults on injury terms.

Types of agreements:

1. Elimination of injurious effect (CVD/AD): quantitative restraint or subsidy-cessation agreements negotiated with foreign authorities.
2. Price undertakings (AD): exporters revise prices to fully offset the margin of dumping as preliminarily calculated (minimum export prices or price floors).
3. Export cessation agreements (rare): voluntary undertakings to withdraw the merchandise from U.S. export channels.

Key procedural and compliance elements:

• Suspension agreements require ongoing monitoring of compliance by Commerce, including frequent certification and validation of prices or volumes. Breach of the agreement or changed circumstances can trigger resumption of the underlying investigation and immediate imposition of provisional measures.
• Interested parties may request review, modification, or termination of a suspension agreement under the same standards as full AD/CVD investigations. Judicial review of Commerce’s decisions related to agreements is available at the CIT.
• Prominent cases include sugar from Mexico (2014–present), uranium from Russia (multiple renewals), and various steel products. Failure to comply or change in market circumstances may lead to re-imposition of duties.

Strategic note: For importers, a suspension agreement frequently results in a quota or floor price and compliance documentation requirements, not an exemption from regulation.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1671c Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1673c Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.208

Anti-circumvention authority is a critical feature of U.S. trade-remedy law, allowing the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to expand antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders to cover imports that evade duties via minor product changes, new types of products, assembly in third countries, or completion/assembly within the United States. The statutory framework is found at 19 U.S.C. § 1677j (as amended by the Customs and Trade Act of 1990) and Commerce’s procedural rules are located at 19 C.F.R. § 351.226. These provisions directly target classic evasion tactics, such as “transshipment” or “slight modification,” aiming to preserve the intended effect of trade remedies.

Statutory categories — Four main types:

1. Minor alteration (19 U.S.C. § 1677j(c)). If a product subject to an AD/CVD order is only “minimally altered” to circumvent the order—such as trivial technological or physical changes without commercial significance—Commerce may expand the scope to cover the altered merchandise, unless the alteration destroys essential characteristics. This is assessed on a case-by-case basis, examining the significance of the alteration and market behavior.
2. Later-developed merchandise (19 U.S.C. § 1677j(d)). If, after the original investigation, a new product not in commercial production at the time of the original investigation essentially replaces or is functionally equivalent to the subject merchandise, Commerce can extend an order to also capture the new “later-developed” product.
3. Third-country assembly or completion (19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)). If the foreign merchandise subject to AD/CVD is shipped to a third country, then assembled or completed (using parts or components from the country subject to the order), and then exported to the U.S., circumvention may be found if: (a) the process is minor or insignificant, (b) the value of parts from the subject country is significant, and (c) the importer or manufacturer is related or aware of the AD/CVD order.
4. U.S. assembly or completion (19 U.S.C. § 1677j(a)). Where significant parts or components (produced in the country subject to the order) are shipped to the United States and assembled or completed here, Commerce can similarly treat the finished merchandise as covered by the AD/CVD order if the assembly process is minor and the value of imported parts is substantial.

Procedural framework: Commerce may self-initiate a review or act on a petition from an “interested party.” Regulations under 19 C.F.R. § 351.226 set out procedures for notice, fact collection, public comment, and deadlines (typically 300 days for a final decision). If circumvention is found, Commerce will issue a ruling expanding the scope of the existing order to the subject merchandise, which is then enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Practice note: Anti-circumvention can trigger liability for retroactive duties (“suspension of liquidation”) from the date Commerce initiates the inquiry. As supply chains become more sophisticated, anti-circumvention has become one of the most active enforcement areas in U.S. trade.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1677j Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.226