May 24, 2012

No Countervailing Duties on Chinese Imports: Possibility of Refunds

Since 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed countervailing duties on a variety of products imported from China (see full list below). At the same time, the Commerce Department has considered China to be a non-market economy country, which meant that Chinese goods were subject to additional antidumping duties calculated with the use of a special methodology. Countervailing duties are additional duties designed to remedy government conduct and, as such, offset government subsidies. Antidumping duties are additional duties to remedy unfair pricing, and are directed to the exporter.

On December 19, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of GPX International Tire Corp. v. U.S., ruled that the countervailing duty law does not apply to non-market economy countries such as China. The GPX case involved an appeal of a Commerce decision to impose antidumping and countervailing duties on off-the-road tires imported from China. The decision is not limited to tires and essentially means that the Commerce Department does not have legal authority to impose countervailing duties on any imports from China.

The case raise a number of questions for any company that imports or has imported goods from China and raises the possibility of refunds for any duties paid. Key questions and answers are presented below.

Is the decision limited to goods from China? No. The decision affects goods from any non-market economy country. To date, China is the only non-market economy country impacted by countervailing duties.

Should importers continue to enter goods subject to countervailing duties? Yes. Until Customs advises otherwise, goods covered under the scope of a countervailing duty order should be entered as such and importers should continue to pay countervailing duties owing. It is possible that the case will be overturned either by a rehearing by the Court of Appeals or appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If so, importers do not want to be caught in a position whereby they need to file prior disclosures and/or voluntary tenders to correct Customs entries. In that regard, Customs has not issued guidelines as to how to proceed and companies failing to pay countervailing duties on goods covered under the scope of a countervailing duty order may find themselves the target of increased Customs scrutiny or enforcement actions.

When do you expect we will know the final results? It is highly likely that Customs will wait for instructions from commerce, which could take six to nine months to provide the necessary information. In the event that the government seeks a rehearing or an appeal, then we believe that a final decision within six months is possible in a best case scenario, but that importers should not expect a decision until well into the second half of 2012 or beyond.

Are there refund opportunities? Yes. Going forward and retroactively. Affected importers should be taking action and filing protests with Customs on any entries that have liquidated wherein less than 180 days have elapsed from the date of liquidation. Moreover, importers should be proactively monitoring entries scheduled to liquidate so that protests may be filed, as required. The protest need not be an in-depth submission, but instead should designate a “lead protest” and thereafter, merely reference the lead protest on subsequent protests filed in order to protect the importer’s right to a refund. Refunds, of course, will be issued with interest. It is possible that procedures for refunds will also be available for importers on entries wherein more than 180 days have run since the date of liquidation. However, that is speculative at this time and this possibility will depend on future litigation as well as discussions involving both Customs and Commerce.

Should importers take action with Commerce as well? Yes. Affected importers should take part in the annual administrative review process involving the assessment of countervailing duties on goods from China to prevent the liquidation of any entries and collection of any countervailing duties.

Assuming that the GPX decision is not overturned, it is unclear how the decision will be implemented. Commerce will be barred from imposing any new countervailing duties, but the question remains as to whether the government will stop collecting countervailing duties from past cases and refund all such duties paid to date. We believe that it would be improper for Commerce and Customs to refuse refunding all countervailing duties, but the agencies may resist doing so, at least at the outset, which could trigger additional lawsuits.

To date, countervailing duties have been collected on the following goods imported from China:

  • Circular welded steel pipe (case no. C-570-911)
  • Laminated woven sacks (case no. C-570-917)
  • Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (case no. C-570-915)
  • Raw flexible magnets (case no. C-570-923)
  • Pneumatic off-the-road tires (case no. C-570-913)
  • Lightweight thermal paper (case no. C-570-921)
  • Sodium nitrate (case no. C-570-926)
  • Circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe (case no. C-570-931)
  • Circular welded steel line pipe (case no. C-570-936)
  • Citric acid and certain citrate salts (case no. C-570-938)
  • Tow behind lawn groomers (case no. C-570-940)
  • Kitchen appliance shelving and racks (case no. C-570-942)
  • Oil country tubular goods (case no. C-570-944)
  • Prestressed concrete steel wire strand (case no. C-570-946)
  • Steel grating (case no. C-570-948)
  • Narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (case no. C-570-953)
  • Magnesia carbon bricks (case no. C-570-955)
  • Seamless steel standard, line and pressure pipes (case no. C-570-957)
  • Coated paper (case no. C-570-959)
  • Steel fasteners (case no. C-570-961)
  • Potassium phosphate salts (case no. C-570-963)
  • Drill pipe (case no. C-570-966)
  • Aluminum extrusions (case no. C-570-968)
  • Multilayered wood flooring (case no. C-570-971)
  • Steel wheels (case no. C-570-974)
  • Galvanized steel wire (case no. C-570-976)
  • High pressure steel cylinders (case no. C-570-978)

Importers of any of the above goods from China should contact their customs or international trade attorney for further guidance and appropriate action.

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Shareholder

Philippe Bruno has over 25 years of experience in counseling and representing U.S. and foreign producers, exporters and importers in a wide range of administrative proceedings before the U.S. government and its agencies, as well as before governmental institutions of foreign countries, including the European Commission, Canada, Brazil and China. 

202.331.3193

About the Author

Shareholder

Rosa S. Jeong is a shareholder in Greenberg Traurig's Global Trade Practice Group in Washington, D.C.  Her practice focuses on all aspects of international trade laws, including trade remedy proceedings before the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. International Trade Commission, federal courts, and the World Trade Organization.  She has counseled and represented companies in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, and appeals of such cases in the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  She has also...

202.533.2328

Contributors

Of Counsel

Robert Stang is Of Counsel with Greenberg Traurig's Global Trade Practice, based in Washington, D.C. As an attorney focusing in international trade and customs law, Robert brings over 20 years experience to handling a wide range of trade and customs issues, including compliance, supply chain security, classification and valuation, transfer pricing, NAFTA, CBI, U.S. Customs audits, and legislative changes relevant to U.S. importers.

202.533.2388

About the Author

Shareholder

Donald Stein's practice focuses on federal regulatory issues, and in particular United States Customs law, trade remedies, and trade policy issues. From dealing with imports and the myriad of laws enforced by the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection ("Customs"), Don also has developed experience in practicing before other federal regulatory agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He is also experienced in working with both the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S....

202.530.8502

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.