On August 13, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) proposed changes to its regulations governing antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) proceedings.1 As drafted, the proposals would establish important new requirements and procedures for AD/CVD proceedings, including new shipper reviews, scope inquiries, and circumvention inquires.2 Commerce is accepting comments on these proposed changes through September 14, 2020.3
If these proposed changes are adopted, the revised regulations will pose several new challenges for importers and exporters of merchandise that is or could be subject to AD or CVD orders. The most significant of these challenges are discussed in detail below.
1. New Certification and Enhanced Documentation Requirements in Requests for New Shipper Reviews
The first challenge posed by Commerce’s proposal is related to new shipper reviews. Exporters and foreign producers that begin exporting or producing merchandise subject to an AD or CVD order after the order is implemented are entitled to request a new shipper review to obtain their own individual AD and/or CVD rates on an expedited basis. Currently, requests for new shipper reviews require requestors to prove that they have exported, or sold for export, subject merchandise to the United States after the period of investigation.
Under the proposed regulations, a requestor would also need to provide documentation to prove that its sales were “bona fide.”4 Specifically, a request for a new shipper review would need to contain documentation establishing:
- the date on which the subject merchandise of the requestor was first entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption
- the volume of the shipments and whether their shipments were made in commercial quantities
- the date of the first sale, and any subsequent sales, to an unaffiliated customer in the United States
- the circumstances surrounding the sale (such as price, expenses, and whether the merchandise was resold at arm’s length and at a profit)
- the business activities of the producer or exporter, including (i) the producer/exporter’s offer(s) to sell merchandise in the United States, (ii) the complete circumstances surrounding the producer/exporter’s sales in all markets, (iii) the producer/exporter’s relationship with any third-party producer/supplier, and (iv) the producer/exporter’s relationship to its first unrelated U.S. customer
Further, to discourage meritless requests for new shipper reviews and to preserve Commerce’s resources in conducting new shipper reviews where there is a reasonable likelihood that the unaffiliated customer will participate in the review, Commerce’s proposal would require the requestor to provide two new types of certifications:
- a certification from the unaffiliated customer in the United States that it did not purchase the subject merchandise during the investigation period
- a certification from the unaffiliated customer that it will provide information requested by Commerce regarding the purchase
2. New Rules and Procedures for Scope Inquiries
Another challenge posed by Commerce’s proposal is related to scope inquiries. A party may file a scope inquiry to seek a determination from Commerce as to whether a product is subject to an existing AD/CVD order. Under current regulations, the scope ruling request must contain a detailed description of the product (including its technical characteristics and uses and the product’s classification under the U.S. tariff schedule) and an explanation of whether the product is within the scope of an order.
In the proposed regulations, Commerce explains that it will be developing a single, standardized scope application that will be available on Commerce’s website. In addition to the information currently required in scope ruling requests, the new application will request several new and more detailed types of information, including (1) a narrative history of the production of the product at issue, (2) the volume of annual production of the product for the most recently completed fiscal year, (3) schematic drawings and marketing materials, and (4) entry summary forms and other commercial documents (e.g., invoices and contracts).
Importantly, the proposed rule also explains that an affirmative scope ruling is a determination that the product has “always” been within scope. As such, following an affirmative scope ruling under the proposed rule, Commerce would instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated entries dating back to the earliest suspension date under the order — normally the date of publication of the preliminary determination during the investigation. This revision would expand the reach of an affirmative scope determination because the current rules do not allow suspension of liquidation for entries that were not already suspended before the date the scope inquiry was initiated.5
3. Countrywide Application of Circumvention Findings
A final challenge posed by Commerce’s proposal is related to circumvention inquiries. Current regulations allow Commerce to apply existing AD/CVD orders to merchandise that has been found to be circumventing an order. In particular, Commerce may make such a finding on merchandise completed in a third country or the United States using parts and components from the country subject to the order, merchandise that is altered in form or appearance in minor respects, or merchandise that is developed after the issuance of the AD/CVD order.
Commerce generally initiates a circumvention inquiry in order to investigate claims made by the domestic industry that a particular exporter, foreign producer, or importer is engaged in circumvention of an AD/CVD order. However, in recent years, Commerce has initiated circumvention reviews of, and ultimately applied AD/CVD duties on, entire countries without clear authority to do so. For example, Commerce did so in the recent anticircumvention determinations in Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from China and Aluminum Extrusions from China.6 The proposed regulations would codify Commerce’s authority to make circumvention determinations on a countrywide basis if there is a possibility of subsequent circumvention by other exporters, foreign producers, or importers following the issuance of an affirmative company-specific circumvention determination. Consequently, future anticircumvention inquiries may implicate more companies and have broader effects, placing additional burdens on exporters, foreign producers, and importers to submit information to Commerce similar to the information required during an AD/CVD investigation or administrative review.
* * *
As described above, Commerce’s proposed changes to the AD/CVD regulations may pose expensive and time-consuming challenges for importers and exporters involved in new shipper reviews, scope inquiries, and circumvention inquiries. Companies that expect to be involved in such proceedings should consider submitting comments on the proposed changes before September 14, 2020.
2 These proposals would also modify the regulations regarding (1) the deadline for submitting comments on industry support in AD/CVD petitions; (2) referrals through which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) asks Commerce if merchandise at issue is covered by an AD/CVD order (covered merchandise referrals); (3) certifications from interested parties to establish whether merchandise is subject to an AD/CVD order; (4) certifications filed by importers concerning the reimbursement of AD/CVD duties by the exporter or foreign producer (importer reimbursement certifications); and (5) certain procedural aspects of AD/CVD proceedings.
3 Comments should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. ITA-2020-0001. No comments containing confidential or business proprietary information will be accepted.
4 Additionally, for the duration of the new shipper review, importers will be required to pay cash deposits instead of posting bonds. This proposed modification implements amendments made to the AD/CVD statute as part of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, which eliminated the option of posting an AD/CVD bond or security in new shipper reviews.
5 In cases in which Commerce issues a final scope ruling without initiating a formal scope inquiry, current rules do not allow suspension of liquidation for entries that were not already suspended before the date of the final scope ruling. See United Steel and Fasteners, Inc. v. United States, 947 F.3d 794, 802-803 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
6 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, 83 Fed. Reg. 23,895 (Dep’t of Commerce May 23, 2018); Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, and Partial Rescission, 84 Fed. Reg. 39,805 (Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 12, 2019).
Sidley Austin LLPはクライアントおよびその他関係者へのサービスの一環として本情報を教育上の目的に限定して提供します。本情報をリーガルアドバイスとして解釈または依拠したり、弁護士・顧客間の関係を結ぶために使用することはできません。
弁護士広告 - ニューヨーク州弁護士会規則の遵守のための当法律事務所の本店所在地は、Sidley Austin LLP ニューヨーク：787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019 (+212 839 5300)、シカゴ：One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603、(+312 853 7000)、ワシントン：1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (+202 736 8000)です。