Trade Remedies: Countervailing Duties

Trade Remedies: Countervailing Duties

Trade Remedies: Countervailing Duties
August 23, 2021
The U.S. Constitution grants to Congress the power to regulate trade with foreign nations and
levy tariffs. Since 1922, U.S. law and foreign policy have favored applying tariffs and duties
Christopher A. Casey
equally to all trading partners. This principle, known as most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment,
Analyst in International
has been central to the rules-based global trading system since 1947 and is one of the
Trade and Finance
foundational principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Liana Wong
The most frequently invoked exceptions to MFN treatment are three “trade remedy” laws. These
Analyst in International
U.S. laws, which implement multilateral trade rules and agreements among WTO members, are
Trade and Finance
enforced primarily through administrative investigations by two U.S. government agencies: the

International Trade Administration (ITA) of the Department of Commerce and the U.S.
International Trade Commission (USITC). Trade remedy laws enable the United States to impose

additional duties aimed at specific producers or countries to remedy unfair trade practices or to
help domestic industries adjust to sudden surges of fairly traded goods. The three types of laws traditionally classified as
“trade remedies” are:
Antidumping (AD) laws provide relief to domestic industries that have been, or are threatened with, material injury caused by
imported goods sold in the U.S. market at prices that are shown to be less than fair market value. The relief provided is an
additional import duty placed on the dumped imports based upon calculations made by the ITA. Antidumping orders are the
most frequently used.
Countervailing duty (CVD) laws provide relief to domestic industries that have been, or are threatened with, material injury
caused by imported goods that have been found to have received WTO-inconsistent government subsidies, and can therefore
be sold at lower prices than similar goods produced in the United States. The relief provided is an additional import duty
placed on the subsidized imports.
Safeguard (also referred to as escape clause) laws give domestic industries relief from surges of imported goods that are
fairly traded if serious injury—or threat thereof—to the domestic industry is found. The most frequently applied safeguard
law, Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, is designed to give domestic industry the opportunity to adjust to the new
competition and remain competitive. The relief provided is generally an additional temporary import duty, a temporary
import quota, or a combination of both. Safeguard laws require presidential action in order for relief to be put into effect.
Many Members of Congress have long been interested in trade remedies. Petitioners seeking to have antidumping and
countervailing duties imposed often contact their Senators and Representatives about these issues. Members also hear from
importers and consumers about adverse effects when they are faced with rising duties.
While economists note that subsidies may distort markets and harm certain domestic businesses, most economists have
generally seen countervailing laws and policies as economically inefficient and trade distorting. Many note that CVDs often
seem to be used for protectionist purposes rather than to offset harmful trade-distorting subsidies. Some economists and
policy experts, however, have acknowledged the role that these policies have played in making trade liberalization more
politically feasible by providing protection for industries that might otherwise oppose such measures.
While antidumping duties are the most frequently used trade remedy, CVDs have grown in recent years, particularly against
imports from China. CVDs are also of particular interest to the United States, as it is the largest user of CVDs. This report
provides an overview of the current CVD laws and regulations. It also analyzes a number of recent major issues with respect
to U.S. CVD policy, including: whether and how to apply CVDs to nonmarket economies, and related negotiations to update
WTO rules; the definition of a public body; whether to use CVDs to address currency manipulation; how to manage
increasingly common transnational subsidies; the role CVDs may play in addressing subsidies granted during the COVID-19
pandemic; and the high legal costs associated with seeking the imposition of CVDs.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 23 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 32 link to page 33 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 12 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Countervailing Duty Defined .................................................................................................... 2
The Origins and Development of Countervailing Duties .......................................................... 3
Countervailing Duty Laws and Investigations ................................................................................ 6
U.S. Statutes .............................................................................................................................. 6
U.S. International Obligations ................................................................................................... 6
Countervailing Duty Investigations and Measures ................................................................... 7
Initiation .............................................................................................................................. 7
Preliminary Determinations ................................................................................................ 8
Final Determinations ........................................................................................................... 9
Critical Circumstances ........................................................................................................ 9
Termination of Investigation and Agreements ........................................................................ 10
Administrative and Sunset Reviews ......................................................................................... 11
Countervailing Duty Trends .......................................................................................................... 12
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 15
Economics of Countervailing Duties ...................................................................................... 16
Developing Economies and CVDs .......................................................................................... 19
Nonmarket Economies and CVDs .......................................................................................... 21
NMEs, CVDs, and the WTO’s Appellate Body ................................................................ 22
New Applications of CVDs ..................................................................................................... 26
CVDs to Address Currency Manipulation ........................................................................ 26
Transnational Subsidies and Applications of CVDs to Third Countries ........................... 28
Reforming the SCM Agreement .............................................................................................. 29
Cost of Seeking the Imposition of CVDs and Small and Medium-Sized Businesses
Access .................................................................................................................................. 30

Figures
Figure 1. CVD Investigation Process .............................................................................................. 8
Figure 2. Countervailing Duty Investigation Timeline .................................................................. 12
Figure 3. CVD Measures by Reporting Member .......................................................................... 13
Figure 4. U.S. CVD Measures in Force ......................................................................................... 14
Figure 5. CVD Measures by Sector ............................................................................................... 15

Tables
Table 1. De Minimis and Negligible Import Thresholds ............................................................... 20
Table 2. Countries Removed from the List of Countries Eligible for Special and
Differential Treatment under U.S. CVD Law ............................................................................ 20

Congressional Research Service

link to page 36

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 32

Congressional Research Service

link to page 20 link to page 16

Introduction
In general, the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO), of which the United States is a
member, require each member to apply tariffs and duties equally to all other members. This
principle, known as unconditional most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment, has been central to the
rules-based global trading system since 1947 and part of U.S. law and foreign policy since 1922.1
The WTO agreements allow exceptions to this treatment in certain circumstances, including to
remedy unfair trade practices and to help domestic industries adjust to sudden surges of fairly
traded goods. The three most frequently applied U.S. trade remedy laws permit the imposition of
countervailing duties, antidumping duties, and safeguards. Countervailing duty (CVD) and
antidumping duty laws are enforced through administrative investigations and actions by two
U.S. government agencies: the International Trade Administration (ITA) of the Department of
Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC).2
CVD laws are the second most commonly used of these remedies. CVD laws provide relief to
domestic industries that have been, or are threatened with, material injury caused by imported
goods that have been found to have received WTO-inconsistent government subsidies, and are
therefore found to be sold at lower prices than similar goods produced in the United States. The
relief provided is an additional import duty, calculated by the ITA, placed on the subsidized
imports. Government subsidies and CVD measures can be controversial and are actively debated
by proponents and opponents of these measures, as well as by policymakers While some
economists acknowledge the theoretical benefits of CVDs, including to address market
imperfections and potential economic harm to U.S. firms and workers from government subsidies
that may be provided to foreign industries, other economists and experts argue that the economic
cost of their uneven application may be greater than their theoretical benefits.3 Specifically, many
economists argue that CVDs serve as trade-distorting protectionist measures. Other experts
contend that, while inefficient, CVDs may make trade liberalization more politically feasible and
serve to counter potentially harmful government subsidies in global market competition.4 The
United States has long been, and remains, the most frequent user of CVDs relative to other
countries.5
Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to regulate trade with foreign
countries. While Congress has delegated some of that authority to the President, it continues to
play a major role in making U.S. law and shaping multilateral rules with respect to these
remedies. The rise of China and its state-led economy has presented challenges to the multilateral

1 Unconditional MFN treatment came into being as a result of both legislative and executive action. First, Section 317
of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922, P.L. 67-318 (September 21, 1922), 42 Stat. 858, empowered the
President to impose duties or exclude imports from any country that treated U.S. goods differently than another
country. Second, President Harding gave permission to his Secretary of State to conclude commercial treaties based on
unconditional MFN treatment. Foreign Relations of the United States 1923, v. 1, pp. 130-131.
2 The reason for covering dumping and countervailing duties in separate reports is that although the procedures are
similar, as one scholar put it, “the policy discourses of antidumping and of countervailing duties are […] quite
different.” J.M. Finger, Antidumping: How it Works and Who Gets Hurt (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
1993), p. 7; CRS Report R46296, Trade Remedies: Antidumping, by Christopher A. Casey; CRS In Focus IF10018,
Trade Remedies: Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, by Vivian C. Jones and Christopher A. Casey.
3 See “Economics of Countervailing Duties” below.
4 Ibid.
5 See “Countervailing Duty Trends” below.
Congressional Research Service
1

regime that regulates the imposition of CVDs. As such, subsidies and CVDs have become more
salient to policymakers in the United States and other market-led economies.
This report begins with background on the development of CVDs, a summary of the current CVD
process, and an analysis of trends. It then analyses major issues with respect to U.S. CVD policy,
including: whether and how to apply CVDs to nonmarket economies and current discussions to
revise trade rules; the definition of a public body; whether to use CVDs to address currency
manipulation; how to manage increasingly common transnational subsidies; the role CVDs may
play in addressing subsidies granted during the COVID-19 pandemic; and the cost of seeking the
imposition of CVDs to small and medium-sized businesses.
Background
Countervailing Duty Defined
A countervailing duty is an additional tax or tariff placed on imported goods to offset certain
kinds of subsidies provided by an exporting country.6 The governing international agreements—
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the WTO’s Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement)—define a subsidy as a financial
contribution, made by a government or any public body, that confers a benefit.7 The U.S. laws
implementing the agreements similarly define a subsidy as certain kinds of financial
contributions, income or price supports, or certain indirect payments that confer a benefit.8
Not all subsidies are countervailable. Under both the SCM Agreement and U.S. law, a subsidy
must be “specific” or be explicitly prohibited in order to be countervailable.9 A subsidy is specific
if it is limited in law, or in fact, to a specific industry or enterprise.10 This requirement of
specificity ensures that common government programs like financing infrastructure and funding
public education are not included in the scope of countervailable subsidies.11 A subsidy is
prohibited if it is contingent upon export performance, or the use of domestic goods.12
Additionally, if the subsidizing country is a party to the SCM Agreement (as all WTO members
are), the subsidy must be “actionable” to be countervailable. An actionable subsidy is one that
causes an injury to a domestic industry, nullifies or impairs a benefit of other WTO members, or
causes “serious prejudice” to the interests of another member.13

6 Walter Goode, Dictionary of Trade Policy Terms, 5th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), s.v.
“countervailing measures.”
7 Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures art. 1.1, 1869 U.N.T.S. 154 (SCM Agreement); Appellate
Body Report, United States — Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India,
¶ 2.195, WTO Doc. WT/DS436/AB/R (adopted December 19, 2014).
8 Tariff Act of 1930, P.L. 71-361 (June 17, 1930), 46 Stat. 590, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, P.L.
96-39 (July 26, 1979) § 771; 93 Stat. 144, 176, codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1677 (2018).
9 SCM Agreement arts. 2-3; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A).
10 SCM Agreement art. 2; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(D).
11 Alan O. Sykes, “Countervailing Duty Law: An Economic Perspective,” Columbia Law Review 89, no. 2 (March
1989), p. 204.
12 SCM Agreement art. 3; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(B)-(C).
13 SCM Agreement art. 5.
Congressional Research Service
2

The Origins and Development of Countervailing Duties
The turn of the twentieth century was a time of vigorous debate in the United States and Europe
about the meaning of free trade and the role of subsidies in international commerce.14 Much of the
debate centered on sugar. Various European states had placed high tariffs on imports of sugar,
while also subsidizing its export to bolster domestic production. By the 1880s, global sugar prices
were plummeting.15 Many political advocates of more open trade were unsure of what to do.
Frank Taussig, a leading U.S. economist (who would later become chair of the U.S. Tariff
Commission), noted that “the situation was so exceptional that even a convinced free-trader might
accede to [measures for] ending it [because] the bounty system was certainly a greater violation
of the principle of free-trade than the prohibition or taxation of bounty-fed imports.”16
One of the outcomes of this debate was the creation of what was arguably the first modern
multilateral trade institution—the Permanent Commission established by the Brussels
Convention.17 Another was the development of the modern regime of countervailing duties—the
oldest of the modern trade remedies—at both the national and international levels.
Beginning in the 1890s, U.S. trade laws began to include countervailing duty provisions designed
to offset export subsidies (then known as “export bounties”). The Tariff Act of 1890 included an
additional duty on certain sugar from “any country when and so long as such country pays or
shall hereafter pay, directly or indirectly, a bounty on the exportation of [certain sugars].”18 In
1897, Congress expanded countervailing duties to cover all goods receiving an export bounty.
The new act provided:
That whenever any country, dependency, colony, province, or other political subdivision
of government shall pay or bestow, directly or indirectly, any bounty or grant upon the
exportation of any article or merchandise…there shall be levied…an additional duty equal
to the net amount of such bounty or grant…. The net amount of all such bounties or grants
shall be from time to time ascertained, determined, and declared by the Secretary of the
Treasury….19
This provision remained relatively unchanged for two decades.20 In 1922, Congress expanded the
CVD provision beyond export bounties to include subsidies granted for the “manufacture or
production” of goods.21 Administration of CVDs remained with the U.S. Treasury.

14 E.g., Frank Trentmann, Free Trade Nation: Commerce, Consumption, and Civil Society in Modern Britain (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 1-7; Michael Fakhri, Sugar and the Making of International Trade Law
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 43-59.
15 Fakhri, Sugar and the Making of International Trade Law, p. 42.
16 Frank W. Taussig, “The End of Sugar Bounties,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 18, no. 1 (November 1903), pp.
133-134.
17 International Convention Relative to Bounties on Sugar, March 5, 1902, 95 B.F.S.P. 6. Michael Fakhri, “The
Institutionalisation of Free Trade and Empire: A Study of the 1902 Brussels Convention,” London Review of
International Law 2, no. 1 (2014), p. 50; Fakhri, Sugar and the Making of International Trade Law, pp. 21-25.
18 Tariff Act of 1890, P.L. 51-1244 (October 1, 1890) Schedule E, 26 Stat. 567, 584. Congress slightly modified this
version of the countervailing duty in 1894. Tariff Act of 1894, P.L. 53-349 (August 27, 1894) Schedule E, 28 Stat. 509,
521.
19 Tariff Act of 1897, P.L. 55-11 (July 24, 1897) § 5, 30 Stat. 151, 205.
20 Tariff Act of 1909, P.L. 61-5 (August 5, 1909) § 6, 36 Stat. 11, 85; Tariff Act of 1913, P.L. 63-16 (October 3, 1913)
§ 4(E), 38 Stat. 114, 193.
21 Tariff Act of 1922, P.L. 67-318 (September 21, 1922) § 303, 42 Stat. 858, 935-946. The expansion was suggested by
William S. Culbertson, then President of the U.S. Tariff Commission. He also noted that such an expansion should be
considered closely with congressional action on antidumping. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Tariff Act
Congressional Research Service
3

In 1947, 23 countries, including the United States, signed GATT, a multilateral agreement with
the objective of “the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the
elimination of discriminatory treatment in international commerce.”22 The agreement established
the foundation of the post-World War II rules-based trading system. Article VI of that agreement
allowed the imposition of CVDs to offset bounties or subsidies on manufacture, production, or
export of a product.23
By the 1970s, the United States was growing increasingly concerned about subsidies24 and many
Members of Congress frequently critiqued the Treasury Department’s infrequent application of
CVDs.25 Treasury imposed CVDs 41 times between 1897 and 1959; it imposed none between
1959 and 1968.26 Throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, many Members of Congress, the Senate
Committee on Finance, and the House Committee on Ways and Means expressed dissatisfaction
with the administration of CVD laws, particularly with the time Treasury took in responding to
industry petitions.27 Perhaps in response to congressional pressure or changing economic
circumstances in the late-1960s, Treasury began issuing more CVDs.28 Between 1967 and 1974,
Treasury imposed 17 CVDs, including its first ever on a domestic subsidy (all previous CVDs
had been placed on export subsidies).29 Despite the increase in CVD orders, in 1974, Congress
amended U.S. CVD law to make the petition and investigation process more formal and to limit
Treasury’s discretion in the timing of investigations. Treasury was now required to make a

of 1921, hearing on H.R. 7456, vol. 1, 67th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 67-108 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1922), pp. 60-61. A
number of the expanded provisions related to countervailing duties were noted to be “similar in principle to that
imposed, under the Brussels sugar convention, by the major European countries upon bountied exports of sugar.” U.S
Congress, House, Sixth Annual Report of the United States Tariff Commission, 67th Cong., 4th sess., December 5, 1922,
H.Doc. 67-480 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1923), p. 52.
22 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Preamble, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U.N.T.S. 194 [hereinafter
GATT 1947].
23 Ibid. art. VI.
24 In 1972, in response to a request by the United States, a GATT Working Group was established to consider the
impact of domestic subsidies on stimulating exports and on refining a definition of what constituted a subsidy. U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, GATT Provisions on Unfair Trade Practices, committee print, 93rd Cong., 1st
sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1973), p. 5.
25 E.g., U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Trade Reform Act of 1974, report to accompany H.R. 10710, 93rd
Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 93-1298 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1974), p. 183.
26 Richard N. Cooper, “U.S. Policies and Practices on Subsidies in International Trade,” in International Trade and
Industrial Policies, ed. By Steven J. Warnecke (London: Macmillan, 1978), p. 114.
27 E.g., U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Trade Reform Act of 1974, report to accompany H.R. 10710, 93rd
Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 93-1298 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1974), p. 183: “In the past, the administration of
countervailing duty law has been subject to considerable criticism…The Committee [on Finance] has been concerned
that the Treasury Department has used the absence of time limits to stretch out or even shelve countervailing duty
investigations”; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Trade Agreements Act of 1979, report to
Accompany H.R. 4537, 96th Cong., 1st sess., July 3, 1979, H.Rept. 96-317 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1979), p. 24: “The
Committee has long been dissatisfied with the administration of the antidumping and countervailing duty statutes by
the Treasury Department. Investigations and determinations are often too lengthy, and assessment and collection of
duties are often unreasonably delayed. Staffing in terms of manpower clearly is inadequate. Far too little attention has
been paid to the need for qualified specialists such as engineers and accountants to deal with the growing complexity of
countervailing duty and antidumping cases. […] Given Treasury’s performance over the past 10 years, many have
questioned whether the dumping and countervail investigations and policy functions should remain in the Treasury
Department.”
28 Cooper, “U.S. Policies and Practices on Subsidies in International Trade,” p. 114.
29 Ibid.; John J. Barceló III, “A History of GATT Unfair Trade Remedy Law—Confusion of Purposes,” World
Economy 14, no. 3 (September 1991), p. 324; Department of Treasury, Bureau of Customs, “X-Radial Steel Belted
Tires from Canada,” 38 Federal Register 1018-01, January 8, 1973.
Congressional Research Service
4

preliminary determination on a petition within six months and a final determination within 12.30
The amendment led to a record number of investigations in 1975 leading to 30 CVD orders; the
added procedures and formalities also increased the cost to file petitions.31
Despite the increase in CVDs, many Members of Congress and the House Committee on Ways
and Means continued to express concerns over the handling of CVD investigations.32 In response,
the Carter Administration shifted responsibility for making determinations on the existence of a
subsidy to the newly-created ITA in the Department of Commerce in 1979.33
During the GATT’s Tokyo Round (1974-1979) of multilateral trade negotiations, 27 members of
GATT negotiated the Agreement on the Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI, and
XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Subsidies Code) of 1979.34 The Subsidies
Code provided guidance on the interpretation of Article VI of the GATT. Specifically, the code
disciplined both the provisioning of subsidies and the imposition of CVDs. During the
negotiations, the United States agreed to add an injury determination to its CVD laws, which it
had been exempted from under GATT 1947.35 The USITC was charged with administering the
injury determination.36 According to one commentator, “To the United States, the [Subsidies]
Code is an instrument to control subsidies. To the rest of the world, it is an instrument to control
US countervailing duties.”37
In the years after the Commerce Department took over the administration of CVD laws and
following the drafting of the Subsidies Code, U.S. use of CVDs increased dramatically relative to
the rest of the world. According to a pair of scholars, “between 1979 and 1988 the United States
initiated 371 actions while all other countries combined initiated only 58.”38 As countries came
together during the Uruguay Round (1986-1993) of multilateral trade negotiations, which led to
the creation of the WTO, participants drafted the SCM Agreement and included, for the first time,
a definition of subsidy.39

30 Trade Act of 1974, P.L. 93-619 (January 2, 1975) chap. 3, §331, 88 Stat. 1978, 2050.
31 Cooper, “U.S. Policies and Practices on Subsidies in International Trade,” p. 114; Jürgen Stehn, “Subsidies,
Countervailing Duties, and the WTO: Towards an Open Subsidy Club,” Kieler Diskussionsbeiträge, No. 276, Institut
für Weltwirtschaft, p. 4. See “Small and Medium Sized Business Access,” below.
32 U.S. Congress, Trade Agreements Act of 1979, p. 24.
33 Department of Commerce, Department Organization order No. 10-3, Transmittal No. 484, “Under Secretary for the
International Trade Administration; Authority and Functions,” 45 Federal Register 6141, January 25, 1980; Executive
Office of the President, “Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979,” 44 Federal Register 69273, December 3, 1979.
34 Agreement on the Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI, and XVIII of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, Apr. 12, 1979, 1186 U.NT.S. 204 [hereinafter Subsidies Code].
35 Trade Agreements Act of 1979, P.L. 96-39 (July 26, 1979) §701(a); 98 Stat. 144, 151.
36 Ibid.
37 Attributed to Patrick Maserlin. qtd. in Michael J. Trebilcock and Robert Howse, The Regulation of International
Trade (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 183.
38 Trebilcock and Howse, The Regulation of International Trade, p. 183. At the time the United States was the single
largest import market.
39 SCM Agreement art. 1.
Congressional Research Service
5

Countervailing Duty Laws and Investigations
U.S. Statutes
Statutory authority for CVD investigations
The International Trade Administration
and remedial actions is found in Subtitle B of
(ITA) and the U.S. International Trade
Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
Commission (USITC)
(codified, as amended, at 19 U.S.C. §§1671 et
Two U.S. government agencies are involved in
seq.). The law requires the imposition of a
countervailing duty investigations: the International
countervailing duty if (1) the ITA determines
Trade Administration (ITA) of the U.S. Department of
that the government or a public entity of a
Commerce and the U.S. International Trade
Commission (USITC).
foreign country is providing a countervailable
ITA: Established in 1980, the ITA is an agency within
subsidy for the manufacture, production, or
the U.S. Department of Commerce charged with
export of merchandise imported into the
promoting trade and investment and enforcing trade
United States;40 and, in most cases, (2) the
laws and agreements.
USITC determines that an industry in the
USITC: Established in 1916 as the U.S. Tariff
United States is materially injured or is
Commission, the USITC is an independent,
threatened with material injury or that the
nonpartisan, quasi-judicial federal agency charged with
investigating and making determinations in proceedings
establishment of an industry is materially
involving unfair trade practices, providing analysis and
retarded, by reason of imports of that
information on U.S. trade, and maintaining the
merchandise.41 The statute requires that a
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
countervailing duty be imposed equal to the
(HTSUS).
amount of the net countervailable subsidy.42
U.S. International Obligations
The United States is a party to several international agreements that govern the unilateral
imposition of CVDs, including Article VI of the GATT 199443 and the WTO’s SCM Agreement.44
Both of these agreements were based on U.S. CVD law and practice and the United States was a
proponent of such agreements.
All WTO members are subject to Article VI of the GATT and the SCM Agreement. Article VI of
the GATT allows the imposition of CVDs to offset a subsidy provided for the manufacture,
production, or export of merchandise.45 The SCM Agreement elaborates on the principles
established in Article VI of the GATT46 and provides more detail on several issues including the
definition of a subsidy, the kinds of subsidies that may be countervailed, how often CVDs must
be reviewed once imposed, special treatment for developing countries, and more.47

40 19 U.S.C. §1671(a)(1).
41 19 U.S.C. §1671(a)(2). This injury requirement is waived if the country in question is not a party to the WTO
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (see below).
42 19 U.S.C. §1671(a).
43 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 art. 6, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World
Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 187, 33 I.L.M. 1153 (1994) [hereinafter GATT 1994].
44 SCM Agreement.
45 GATT 1994 art. VI, ¶ 3.
46 Appellate Body Report, Brazil-Desiccated Coconut, p. 14, WTO Doc. WT/DS22/AB/R (adopted March 20, 1997).
47 SCM Agreement. The agreement also defined subsidy for the first time in a major multilateral instrument.
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 12

The SCM Agreement allows the imposition of CVDs in cases where a government or public body
provides certain kinds of subsidies and those subsidies injure the domestic industry, nullify or
impair a benefit, or seriously prejudice the interests of a member.48 Additional remedies include
certain provisional measures, price undertakings, and multilaterally sanctioned countermeasures
under the WTO’s dispute settlement system.49
WTO members with CVD laws or practices that violate the terms of the SCM Agreement may be
subject to WTO dispute settlement proceedings, if challenged by other members.50
Countervailing Duty Investigations and Measures
Initiation
The ITA initiates countervailing investigations either on its own initiative51 or in response to a
petition filed by a domestic interested party simultaneously with the USITC and the ITA.52 Once a
petition is received, the ITA has 20 days to determine whether it contains the necessary elements
and has been filed by an eligible party.53 If the petition meets the requirements, the ITA must
initiate an investigation (Figure 1).
Any domestic interested party can file a petition for relief under U.S. CVD law.54 The USITC and
the ITA have published guidance on the type of information that must be submitted as part of a
petition.55 The USITC’s Trade Remedy Assistance Office provides technical assistance and
advice to interested parties and provides legal assistance to eligible small businesses to enable
them to prepare petitions.56

48 SCM Agreement art. 5.
49 Appellate Body Report, United States — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, p. 87, WTO Doc.
WT/DS217/AB/R; WT/DS234/AB/R (adopted January 27, 2003).
50 CRS In Focus IF10436, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Key Legal Concepts, by Brandon J.
Murrill.
51 19 U.S.C. §1671a(a).
52 19 U.S.C. §1671a(b). Department of Commerce regulations on what a petition must contain are codified at 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.202.
53 19 U.S.C. §1671a(c)(1)(A).
54 19 C.F.R. §351.202.
55 The requirements for a petition are codified at 19 C.F.R. §351.202 (ITA), and 19 C.F.R. §§ 207.10, 207.11. The ITA
has published guidelines for the petitions. ITA, Guidelines for Requesting Relief Under U.S. Countervailing Duty Law,
https://enforcement.trade.gov/petitioncounseling/Guidelines-for-CVD-Petitions-09-30-2015.pdf. The USITC publishes
a handbook that includes guidance on the petition process. USITC, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Handbook,
14th ed., Publication 4540, June 2015, https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/handbook.pdf.
56 19 U.S.C. §1339.
Congressional Research Service
7

Preliminary Determinations
The USITC begins the investigation. The
central question of its investigation is whether
Figure 1. CVD Investigation Process
there is a reasonable indication that the
relevant imports have caused injury or likely
injury to a domestic industry, or materially
retarded the establishment of an industry.57
The USITC must also determine whether the
size of the imports are negligible. In most
circumstances, the USITC must make a
preliminary determination no later than 45
days after the day the petition was filed or
when ITA initiated the investigation.58 If the
USITC issues a negative preliminary
determination or finds negligible imports, the
investigation ends.59
The ITA’s preliminary investigation is
concerned with determining whether there is
a reasonable basis to suspect that a
countervailable subsidy is being provided.60
In most cases, the ITA must make its
determination within 65 days after it initiated
the investigation, but not before the USITC
has issued its preliminary determination.61

If the ITA’s preliminary determination is affirmative, it estimates a countervailable subsidy rate
for each exporter and producer individually investigated, as well as an “all others rate.”62 If
producing individual estimates is not practicable, the ITA may issue a single country-wide
subsidy rate instead.63 These estimated rates are published in the Federal Register and the
Secretary of Commerce will normally then order U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
delay the final computation of all duties on imports of the targeted merchandise (“suspend
liquidation”) until the case is resolved, but to require the posting of cash deposits, bonds, or other
appropriate securities to cover the duties (plus the estimated CVD) for each subsequent entry into
the U.S. market.64

57 19 U.S.C. §1671b(a)(1).
58 19 U.S.C. §1671b(a)(2). In cases in which Commerce has taken extra steps to determine industry support, the ITC
has 25 days from the time it is notified of Commerce’s initiation to make a preliminary determination. Ibid.
59 19 U.S.C. §1671b(a)(1); 19 C.F.R. §207.18.
60 19 U.S.C. §1671b(b)(1).
61 19 U.S.C. §1671b(b)(1); 19 C.F.R. § 351.205(b)(1). If an investigation is extraordinarily complicated, the Secretary
may give notice and the ITA will have 130 days to complete its investigation. 19 U.S.C. §1671b(c); 19 C.F.R. §
351.205(b)(2). If there is an upstream subsidy allegation, the ITA will have 250 days. 19 U.S.C. §1671b(g); 19 C.F.R. §
351.205(b)(3). If an investigation is both extraordinarily complicated and includes an upstream subsidy investigation,
the ITA will have 310 days. 19 C.F.R. § 351.205(b)(3).
62 19 U.S.C. §1671b(d)(i).
63 19 U.S.C. §1671b(d)(ii).
64 19 U.S.C. §1671b(d); 19 C.F.R. § 351.205(c)-(d).
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 16 link to page 16

Whether the ITA’s preliminary determination is affirmative or negative, the ITA continues the
investigation to the final stage (if it is negative, the ITA does not order a suspension of
liquidation) and the USITC continues its investigation. Because this is a preliminary
determination, agencies may not have obtained all possible evidence, and this allows interested
parties a final opportunity to put information and evidence before the two bodies (for a timeline
on CVD investigations, see Figure 2). 65
Final Determinations
Unless the Secretary has determined that the case is extraordinarily complicated, the ITA must
make its final determination within 75 days of the preliminary determination.66 Before issuing a
final determination, the ITA must hold a hearing upon request of any party to the proceeding and
permit the parties to file written materials.67 If the ITA’s final determination is negative, the
proceedings end, and any suspension of liquidation is terminated, bonds and other securities are
released, and deposits are refunded.68 If the ITA’s final determination is affirmative, it orders the
suspension of liquidation if it has not already done so.69 The ITA will publish the order in the
Federal Register and direct CBP to continue or resume (if provisional measures expired)
suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits at the rate determined in the ITA’s final
determination.70
If the ITA’s final determination if affirmative, the USTIC must usually finalize its determination
within 45 days.71 If the ITA’s final determination is negative, then the USITC may take up to 75
days. (See Figure 2). 72
Critical Circumstances
Following continued congressional concerns about delays in imposing CVDs,73 Congress enacted
a “critical circumstances” provision in order “to provide prompt relief to domestic industries
suffering from large volumes, or a surge over a short period, of imports and to deter exporters
whose merchandise is subject to an investigation from circumventing the intent of the law by
increasing their exports to the United States during the period between initiation of an
investigation and a preliminary determination by the [ITA].”74
If a petitioner alleges in its original petition or at any time more than 20 days before ITA makes a
final determination that critical circumstances exist in a CVD case75 (which would impose

65 ITA: 19 C.F.R. §§351.309-351.310(c); USITC: 19 C.F.R. §207.21.
66 19 U.S.C. §1671d(a)(1).
67 19 C.F.R. §§351.309-351.310(c).
68 19 U.S.C. §1671d(c)(3).
69 19 U.S.C. §1671d(c)(1). Commerce would not suspend liquidation if its preliminary determination were negative.
70 19 U.S.C. §1671d(d).
71 19 U.S.C. §1671d(b)(2).
72 19 U.S.C. §1671d(b)(3).
73 See “Origins and Development of CVDs” above.
74 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Trade Agreements Act of 1979, report to accompany H.R.
4537, 96th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 96-317 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1979), p. 63. . This practice has since been
incorporated into the WTO regime, subject to specific conditions, in Article 20.6 of the SCM Agreement.
75 19 U.S.C. §1671b(e).
Congressional Research Service
9

additional retroactive CVDs that one would not normally obtain), then the ITA determines
whether:
 (A) the countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, and
 (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively
short period.76
If the ITA makes an affirmative critical circumstance finding, it extends the suspension of
liquidation of any unliquidated entries of merchandise (entries for which estimated CVD duties
have not been paid) into the United States retroactively to 90 days before the suspension of
liquidation was first ordered or the date on which notice of the determination to initiate the
investigation is published in the Federal Register, whichever is later.77
Whether or not the ITA’s initial critical circumstances determination is affirmative, if its final
determination on subsidies is affirmative, the ITA must also include a final determination on
critical circumstances. If the final determination on critical circumstances is affirmative,
retroactive duties, if not yet ordered, are ordered on unliquidated entries at this time.78 If the
critical circumstances determination is negative, all retroactive suspension of liquidation is
terminated, and bonds, securities, or cash deposits related to the retroactive action are released.79
The USTIC also evaluates whether retroactive application is appropriate. If the ITA finds that
critical circumstances exist, the USITC evaluates the timing and volume of imports, the rapid
increase in inventories and any other circumstances that might undermine the CVD order.80
Termination of Investigation and Agreements
The ITA or the USITC may terminate an investigation if the petitioner withdraws the petition. If
the ITA self-initiated the investigation, the ITA may terminate the investigation of its own
accord.81 Additionally, the ITA may, in certain circumstances, suspend a CVD investigation in
favor of a “suspension agreement” with the country of export (or with exporters who account for
substantially all the exported merchandise at issue) that either eliminates or offsets the alleged
subsidy, eliminates the injurious effects of the imports, or imposes a quantitative restriction on the
exports.82
One example of such an agreement is the suspension agreement between Mexico and the United
States with respect to sugar.83 The United States agreed to suspend its CVD investigation in
exchange for a promise by Mexico “not to provide any new or additional export or import
substitution subsidies on the subject merchandise and has agreed to restrict the volume of direct

76 19 U.S.C. §1671d(a)(2).
77 19 U.S.C. §1671d(e)(2).
78 19 U.S.C. §1671d(c)(4).
79 19 U.S.C. §1671d(c)(4).
80 19 U.S.C. §1671d(c).
81 19 U.S.C. §1671c(a)(1)(A).
82 19 U.S.C. §1671c(b)-(c).
83 Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, “Sugar from Mexico: Suspension of Countervailing
Duty Investigation,” 79 Federal Register 78044, December 29, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
10

or indirect exports to the United States of sugar from all Mexican producers/exporters in order to
eliminate completely the injurious effects of exports of this merchandise to the United States.”84
Administrative and Sunset Reviews
Periodic Review
Each year, during the anniversary month of the publication of a final CVD order, any interested
party may request an administrative review of the order.85 The ITA may also self-initiate a
review.86 During the review process, the ITA recalculates the CVD margin and may adjust the
amount of CVD duties on the subject merchandise.87 Suspension agreements are also monitored
for compliance and reviewed in a similar fashion. The ITA must make a preliminary
determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the order or
suspension agreement under review, and must make a final determination within 120 days after
the publication date of a preliminary determination.88 New exporters, who were not part of the
original review, may also request an expedited review.89
Changed Circumstances Review
An interested party may also request a “changed circumstances” review from the ITA or the
USITC at any time.90 Under current regulations, upon receipt of such a request, the ITA must
determine within 45 days whether to conduct the review.91 If the ITA decides that there is good
cause to conduct the review, the results must be issued within 270 days of initiation, or within 45
days of initiation if all interested parties agree to the outcome of the review.92
Sunset Reviews
Sunset reviews must be conducted on each CVD order no later than once every five years after its
publication.93 In such a review, the ITA determines whether a countervailable subsidy would
likely continue or resume if an order were to be revoked or a suspension agreement terminated,
and the USITC determines whether injury to the domestic industry would be likely to continue or
resume. If both determinations are affirmative, the duty or suspension agreement remains in
place. If either determination is negative, the order is revoked, or the suspension agreement is
terminated.94

84 Ibid.
85 19 U.S.C. §1675(a)(1); 19 CFR §351.213.
86 19 U.S.C. §1675(a)(1).
87 19 U.S.C. §1675(a)(1)(A).
88 19 U.S.C. §1675(a)(3)(A).
89 19 U.S.C. §1675(a)(2)(B).
90 19 U.S.C. §1675(b).
91 19 C.F.R. §351.216(b).
92 19 C.F.R. §351.216(e).
93 19 U.S.C. §1675(c).
94 19 U.S.C. §1675(c); 19 C.F.R. §351.218. These sunset reviews are required in the SCM Agreement (Article 21).
Congressional Research Service
11

Figure 2. Countervailing Duty Investigation Timeline

Source: CRS, based on USITC, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Handbook, 14th ed., June 2015, p. B-3.
Countervailing Duty Trends
U.S. CVD investigations and actions were relatively uncommon until the 1970s. Despite having
CVD statutes on the books since the late nineteenth century, between 1897 and 1967, the United
States imposed CVDs 41 times.95 The use of CVDs by the United States began to increase in the
late 1960s, leading to a dramatic increase in use during the 1970s and 1980s, with a slight decline
in the late 1980s.96 The increase has been attributed to various economic changes, including the
decline in overall tariff rates during the earlier GATT rounds, more export competition as other
countries developed or rebuilt their economies, increased congressional interest, oversight, and

95 Richard N. Cooper, “U.S. Policies and Practices on Subsidies in International Trade,” in International Trade and
Industrial Policies, ed. By Steven J. Warnecke (London: Macmillan, 1978), p. 114.
96 Ibid.: “From 1897 to 1959 countervailing duties were imposed on only 41 occasions, and between 1959 and 1967
none were imposed. Between 1967 and 1974, in contrast, countervailing duties were imposed 17 times. The large
increase reflects in part the overvaluation of the dollar starting in· the late sixties, the successful conclusion of the
Kennedy Round of trade negotiations (negotiations in process usually inhibit any restrictive action), and perhaps also
increasing reliance by other countries on various export-promoting devices.” After 1979, U.S. CVD investigations
increased at a rapid pace relative to the rest of the world.
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 17 link to page 17

legislative action that shifted responsibility for administering CVDs from Treasury to Commerce
in 1979.97 Following the establishment of the WTO in 1994, the use of CVDs began to increase
again, and has continued to do so for the past 25 years (Figure 3).98
A minority of WTO members make use of the remedy. Over the past 25 years, 24 of 159 WTO
member countries have imposed CVD measures.99 During that time, the United States been the
single largest user of CVD measures.100 The European Union, Canada, and Australia have been
the other major historical users of CVDs, although no other country approaches the United States
in terms of frequency of initiating investigations and imposing countervailing measures.101
Between 1995 and 2020 the United States was responsible for approximately half of all CVD
measures put in place (Figure 3).102
Figure 3. CVD Measures by Reporting Member

Source: WTO Statistics on CVD Measures by Reporting Member.

97 Ibid.; John Jackson, The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1989), p. 257; see also “The Origins and Development of CVDs” above.
98 WTO Statistics on CVD Measures by Reporting Member.
99 Ibid.
100 Ibid.
101 Ibid.
102 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
13

link to page 18 link to page 19

During this time, the United
States imposed 173 CVD
Figure 4. U.S. CVD Measures in Force
orders, nearly four times
that of the European Union
(45), the next largest user of
CVDs.103 U.S. use of CVD
measures declined between
2003 and 2005 before
increasing rapidly after
2006. This followed
Commerce’s decision to
allow the simultaneous
imposition of antidumping
duties and CVDs and to

allow the imposition of
Source: USITC, available at
CVDs on nonmarket
https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls.
economies (previously they
had argued that they had no
authority to do so).104 Since then, China has become the largest target of U.S. CVD orders.105 The
United States is alone among the four major historical users of CVD measures in increasing its
use of CVDs over the past decade.106 However, China and India have gradually increased their
use of CVDs during this period.107 As of March 2021, the United States had 151 CVD orders in
place affecting imports from 21 countries (Figure 4).108 Nearly half of CVD orders are imposed
on base metals and articles, an industry long plagued by global excess capacity and a frequent
recipient of government support (Figure 5).109 The chemical, plastic, and machinery industries
are the next largest targets of CVD orders imposed between 1995 and 2019.110
In the United States, CVD investigations and orders are less common than their antidumping
counterparts. CVD orders represent 27% of all trade remedies in place, with AD orders making
up the remaining 73%.111 By country, China is the target of nearly half of all U.S. CVD orders
currently in force, followed by India with 15%.112 All the U.S. CVD orders on China have been
put in place since 2007, when the United States reversed its longstanding opposition to placing
CVDs on nonmarket economies.

103 WTO Statistics on CVD Measures by Reporting Member.
104 See “Non-Market Economies and CVDs,” below.
105 United States International Trade Commission, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in Place, March 17,
2021, available at https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls.
106 WTO Statistics on CVD Measures by Reporting Member.
107 WTO Statistics on CVD Measures by Reporting Member.
108 United States International Trade Commission, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in Place, March 17,
2021, available at https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls.
109 WTO Statistics on CVD Measures by Industry; OECD, Latest Developments in Steelmaking Capacity 2020,
DSTI/SC(2020)3/FINAL; Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity, 2020 GFSEC Ministerial Report, available at
https://www.steelforum.org/events/gfsec-ministerial-report-2020.pdf.
110 WTO Statistics on CVD Measures by Industry.
111 United States International Trade Commission, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in Place, March 17,
2021, available at https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls.
112 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
14

The United States rarely revokes CVD orders. The oldest order, which places CVD duties on
welded carbon steel pipe from Turkey, has been in place since 1986.113 Between 2006114 and
2021, the United States issued 140 CVD orders. Of those 140 orders, the USITC has revoked
eight (6%).115 Nineteen of the orders in place are more than 15 years old.116
The United States is the subject of 12 CVD measures put in place by six countries.117 China has
placed the most CVDs on U.S. exports (6) followed by Peru (2), Australia (1), Chile (1), and the
EU (1).118 The plurality of CVDs are on U.S. chemical products (3) and prepared foodstuffs (3),
with CVDs also on U.S. mineral products (2), live animals (2), base metals (1), and vehicles
(1).119
Figure 5. CVD Measures by Sector

Source: WTO Statistics on CVD Measures by Reporting Member.
Issues for Congress
In general, for the past century Congress has supported using and enhancing trade remedies,
including CVD laws.120 In the most recent Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which authorizes

113 Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, “Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes
From India, Thailand, and Turkey; Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Brazil, Mexico, the Republic
of Korea, and Taiwan, and Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Continuation of
Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order,” 83 Federal Register 5402, February 7, 2018.
114 2006 is the limit of the current ITA data on revocations.
115 Between January 1, 2006 and March 17, 2021. Ibid.
116 United States International Trade Commission, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in Place, March 17,
2021, available at https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/orders.xls.
117 WTO Statistics on CVD Measures by Exporter.
118 WTO Statistics on CVD Measures, Reporting Members vs Exporter.
119 WTO Statistics on CVD Measures, Sectoral Distribution of Measures by Exporters.
120 E.g., Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, P.L. 114-26 (June 29, 2015),
§102(a)(17), 129 Stat. 320, 331 [hereinafter TPA 2015]; Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, P.L. 114-27 (June
29, 2015) §503, 129 Stat. 362, 384; An Act to Apply the Countervailing Duty Provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 to
Congressional Research Service
15

the President to negotiate trade agreements and was in effect from 2015 to July 2021, Congress
included as a principal negotiating objective the preservation of “the ability of the United States
to enforce rigorously its trade remedy laws.”121 Although many economists argue that CVDs are
economically inefficient, other experts highlight their political utility and the importance of
offsetting potentially harmful government subsidies to ensure the playing field is level for U.S.
firms and workers. In the past decades, changes to state practice with regard to subsidies,
particularly by nonmarket economies, have presented new challenges for CVDs. As practices
with respect to subsidies have changed, and new members have joined the WTO, the multilateral
instruments used to address subsidies, like the SCM Agreement, have come under stress. For
example, the United States has frequently expressed its concern about the lack of compliance
with the SCM Agreement’s requirement that WTO members notify the WTO’s secretariat of any
subsidies covered by the agreement.122 This section covers several issues that may be of interest
to Congress as it considers how to regulate international trade, including the economics of CVDs,
the applicability of CVDs to both nonmarket economies and transnational subsidies, the use of
CVDs to address currency manipulation, the cost of petitioning for CVDs, and other issues.
Economics of Countervailing Duties
Economists, law and economics scholars, and policy experts have been relatively less critical of
CVDs than antidumping duties.123 Nevertheless, current scholarship is generally skeptical of the
theoretical basis of CVDs and critical of their application in the United States.124 As one scholar
of law and economics summarized, “economic theory on CVDs is clear and unambiguous—there
is nothing to be said for them—and law and economics scholars have an obligation not to
obfuscate this simple truth.”125
Such critics argue that, as a tariff, CVDs lower overall economic welfare and are a costly and
economically inefficient form of protection for a few specific industries and, in doing so, harm
consumers and downstream producers.126 Several decades ago, the USITC conducted a study on
the economic impact of antidumping and CVDs and found that such remedies “typically benefit
successful petitioning industries by raising prices and improving output and employment

Nonmarket Economy Countries, and for Other Purposes, P.L. 112-99 (March 13, 2012) §1; 126 Stat. 265; codified as
amended at 19 U.S.C. §1671(f).
121 TPA 2015 §102(b)(17). For more on Trade Promotion Authority, see CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion
Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy, by Ian F. Fergusson .
122 SCM Agreement art. 25; United States, Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Proposed Guidelines
for Submission of Questions and Answers under Articles 25.8 and 25.9, WTO Doc: G/SCM/W/557/Rev.4, October 26,
2020.
123 Most studies of CVDs were conducted in the late-1980s and 1990s in the lead up to, and following, the Uruguay
Round, the drafting of the SCM Agreement, and the establishment of the World Trade Organization.
124 Howard P. Marvel and Edward John Ray, “Countervailing Duties,” Economic Journal 105 (November 1996), p.
1576: “Since they may mitigate distortions, CVDs are generally not condemned as strongly as other supposed
‘safeguards’ such as antidumping tariffs and escape clause protection.” Katherine Baylis, “Unfair Subsidies and
Countervailing Duties,” in Handbook on International Trade Policy, ed. William A. Kerr and James D. Gaisford
(Cheltanham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2007), p. 348: “CVD is often perceived as a less-evil brother to AD.” Perhaps
because of this general perception, there has been less research on CVDs over the past few decades, with the bulk of
the economic research having been completed during the Uruguay Round (1986-1993).
125 Michael J. Trebilcock, “Is the Game Worth the Candle? Comments on A Search for Economic and Financial
Principles in the Administration of Countervailing Duty Law,” Law and Policy in International Business 21, no. 4
(1990), p. 728.
126 Ibid.; Sykes, “Countervailing Duty Law: An Economic Perspective.”
Congressional Research Service
16

[however] the costs to the rest of the economy are far greater.”127 A recent empirical study
suggests that the USITC conclusions remain true today, concluding that “protectionism [provided
by trade remedies] has small, short-lived, and mostly insignificant beneficial effects in protected
industries[; in] contrast, protectionism has long-lasting and significant negative effects in
downstream industries.” 128 The same study found similar effects on downstream employment.129
Some experts argue that CVDs may have theoretical benefits in certain circumstances.130
Specifically, these experts argue that CVD laws may deter governments from providing market-
distorting subsidies and thereby increase global economic welfare.131 As one Nobel-prize winning
economist observed, “such laws can be beneficial if they are carefully crafted and
implemented.”132 Proponents of the view that CVD laws may have some theoretical benefits have
acknowledged that such claims have limited empirical support,133 although there has been
some.134
Like with other forms of contingent protection, some policy experts argue that CVDs may
encourage trade liberalization by providing policy tools to address trade practices of concern to
certain constituencies that might otherwise strongly oppose trade liberalization efforts.135 In doing
so, they argue, CVDs may be economically efficient by making trade liberalization politically
possible.136 One trade expert argued that in his research he “found that government officials in
India, China, and Mexico all stressed the opportunity to use trade remedy laws when discussing
trade liberalization with constituents.”137 Similarly, one expert observed that trade remedies like
CVDs were included in the GATT because “some countries (the United States … in particular)
would not otherwise have agree to other aspects of [the] liberalization mandated by the
agreement.”138 Some economists and legal scholars have expressed doubts about such claims. As

127 USITC, The Economic Effects of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders and Suspension Agreements,
Investigation No.332-344, Publication 2900 (June 1995), p. III.
128 Alessandro Barattieri and Matteo Cacciatore, “Self-Harming Trade Policy? Protectionism and Production
Networks,” NBER Working Paper Series, July 2020, p. 31.
129 Ibid., p. 22.
130 For a brief survey of that literature, see Joseph E. Stiglitz, “Dumping on Free Trade: The U.S. Import Trade Laws,”
Southern Economic Journal 64, no. 2 (October 1997), p. 406.
131 Ibid.; John H. Jackson, “Perspectives on Countervailing Duties,” Law and Policy in International Business 21, no. 4
(1990), pp. 742-745, 754-755: “The unfettered use of subsidies in international trade can lead to counter-subsidies, and
counter-counter-subsidies in an escalating progression, all of which can seriously damage world welfare.” However,
others have taken issue with the deterrence claim. E.g., J.G. Castel and C.M. Gastle, “Deep Economic Integration
between Canada and the United States, the Emergence of Strategic Innovation Policy and the Need for Trade Law
Reform,” Minnesota Journal of International Law (1998), pp. 19-22.
132 Stiglitz, “Dumping on Free Trade: The U.S. Import Trade Laws,” p. 421.
133 Jackson, “Perspectives on Countervailing Duties,” p. 743: “whether or not this [deterrence of subsidies and
predation, and monopoly seeking] actually occurs is an empirical question that has been little studied.”
134 E.g., Adam Rose, Zhenhua Chen, and Dan Wei, “Estimating US Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement
Benefits,” in Development Studies in Regional Science, ed. Zhenhua Chen et al. (Singapore: Springer, 2020), p. 470.
135 C. Michael Hathaway, Gary Horlick, Terence Stewart, Angela Ellard and Greg Mastel, “Antidumping,
Countervailing Duties and Trade Remedies: Let's Make a Deal??,” The International Lawyer 37, no. 3 (Fall 2003), p.
825. For an example of this claim in the antidumping context, see Bruce A. Blonigen and Thomas J. Prusa, “Dumping
and Antidumping Duties,” NBER Working Paper 21573 (September 2015), p. 47; Douglas Nelson, “The Political
Economy of Antidumping: A Survey,” European Journal of Political Economy 22 (2006), p. 573; Maurizio Zanardi,
“Anti-dumping: What Are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha?” World Economy 27 (2004), p. 410.
136 Hathaway et al., “Antidumping, Countervailing Duties and Trade Remedies,” p. 825.
137 Ibid.
138 Tania Voon, “Eliminating Trade Remedies from the WTO: Lessons from Regional Trade Agreements,”
Congressional Research Service
17

one legal scholar put it, “There is little evidence that existing law is or was essential to facilitate
politically sensitive tariff concessions, or that the overall level of protection in the United States
would be greater in the absence of a countervailing duty policy.”139 Some experts, including those
who acknowledge theoretical situations in which CVDs may be beneficial, have criticized how
CVD laws have been crafted and administered by governments and used by industry.140 The
timing of petitions for relief and the manner in which such petitions are filed are seen by many
economists and policy experts as evidence that CVDs are “protection measures obtained by rent-
seeking domestic industries,” particularly in economic downturns.141
One issue that many economic analysts have with how CVDs are used, including many who
support the theoretical basis of CVDs, is that when and how petitions for relief are filed by
industries rarely matches up with expected behaviors if the purpose was to offset harmful, trade-
distorting subsidies. For example, as one analysis noted, it would be expected that, when a
subsidy is found to have violated the SCM Agreement, many countries would subsequently
launch CVD investigations against the offending country.142 For example, if Country A imposed a
CVD on widgets from Country B, it would be expected that Countries C, D, E, and F would all
also open investigations into widgets from Country B. But such things rarely happen.143 Instead,
petitions are often filed by one petitioner or industry against many countries simultaneously.144
Some analysts have suggested that this pattern indicates that CVDs are being used for protection
from changes in the global market for a good rather than in response to any particular
subsidization by a particular country.145
Many economists have expressed similar concerns about the choice to file petitions for CVDs and
antidumping duties simultaneously. As two economists wrote, although subsidies are a threat to a
“level playing field” for world trade, “the close association of CVDs and antidumping duties
suggests that alleged subsidies are ancillary to the real motivation for countervailing duties to
achieve trade-distorting protection employing whatever arguments fall readily to hand.”146 That
petitions often allege both dumping and subsidy simultaneously, may be an indication that CVDs
were viewed by petitioners merely as an alternative means of getting protection rather than a

International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59 (2003), p. 95.
139 Sykes, “Countervailing Duty Law: An Economic Perspective,” p. 263.
140 Many proponents of CVD laws have also acknowledged that CVDs are not often put in place to maximize
deterrence or global economic welfare, but rather to protect important political constituencies. Stiglitz, “Dumping on
Free Trade: The U.S. Import Trade Laws,” p. 421: While such laws can be beneficial, “they must no longer be used as
a form of protection against market surges.” Jackson, “Perspectives on Countervailing Duties,” 743: “This approach [of
deterring subsidies] can be countenanced even though the motives of governments in applying countervailing duties are
really not to maximize world welfare, but are instead to maximize the welfare of the producers who constitute
important political constituencies within the country.”
141 Marvel and Ray, “Countervailing duties,” p. 1579; Michael J. Trebilcock, “Is the Game Worth the Candle?,” 728.
However, there is some evidence that CVDs and other trade remedies have been less correlated with broad economic
downturns during the past several decades than in the past. Andrew K. Rose, Daniel M. Sturm and Jeromin
Zettelmeyer, “The March of an Economic Idea? Protectionism Isn’t Counter-cyclic (anymore),” Economic Policy 28,
no. 76 (October 2013).
142 Katherine Baylis, “Unfair Subsidies and Countervailing Duties,” in Handbook on International Trade Policy, ed. by
William A. Kerr and James D. Gaisford (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2007), p. 355.
143 Ibid.
144 Based on CRS analysis.
145 Baylis, “Unfair Subsidies and Countervailing Duties,” 354.
146 Marvel and Ray, “Countervailing duties,” p. 1577.
Congressional Research Service
18

link to page 24

response to the threat of a countervailable subsidy.147 Twenty-five years later, CVD and
antidumping petitions remain closely correlated in the United States.148 However, it is possible
that the close correlation is driven by increasing numbers of CVD petitions with respect to
imports from nonmarket economies, which were originally subject only to antidumping duties.
Congress has been generally supportive of CVDs, including as part of U.S. trade negotiating
objectives in TPA. (See Shaded Text Box Below.) Although economists have generally found
CVDs to be economically inefficient, they provide temporary protection (at a larger cost for the
overall economy) for key industries. Protecting such industries through CVDs may be more
politically feasible than providing a counter subsidy (generally considered more economically
efficient). For decades, some Members have advocated for expanding the contexts in which
CVDs can be used.149
Trade Remedy Negotiating Objectives in the Bipartisan Congressional Trade
Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-26)
The principal negotiating objectives of the United States with respect to trade remedy laws are—
(A) to preserve the ability of the United States to enforce rigorously its trade laws, including the antidumping,
countervailing duty, and safeguard laws, and avoid agreements that lessen the effectiveness of domestic and
international disciplines on unfair trade, especial y dumping and subsidies, or that lessen the effectiveness of
domestic and international safeguard provisions, in order to ensure that United States workers, agricultural
producers, and firms can compete ful y on fair terms and enjoy the benefits of reciprocal trade concessions; and
(B) to address and remedy market distortions that lead to dumping and subsidization, including overcapacity,
cartelization, and market access barriers.
Developing Economies and CVDs
The WTO agreements, including the SCM Agreement, provide for special and differential
treatment for developing economies. The United States has raised concerns and issued proposals
about how WTO members should determine the countries that qualify for such treatment.150
Under the SCM Agreement, a WTO member must terminate a CVD investigation if the amount
of subsidy is de minimis (less than a specified amount) or the volume of subsidized imports is
negligible.151 Developing and least-developed countries are given higher thresholds in both cases
(Table 1).

147 Ibid.; Baylis, “Unfair Subsidies and Countervailing Duties,” 354.
148 Between January 1, 2018 and April 1, 2021, approximately 80% of investigations conducted by the USITC involved
both dumping and subsidy allegations.
149 E.g., Fair Trade with China Enforcement Act, S. 1060, 117th Cong., 1st sess. (2021); Eliminating Global Market
Distortions To Protect American Jobs Act of 2021, S. 1187, 117th Cong., 1st sess. (2021); An Act to Apply the
Countervailing Duty Provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 to Nonmarket Economy Countries, and for Other Purposes,
P.L. 112-99 (March 13, 2012), §1; 126 Stat. 265; Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2010, S. 3134,
111th Cong., 2nd sess. (2010); To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the provisions relating to
countervailing duties apply to nonmarket economy countries, H.R. 3198, 106th Cong., 1st sess. (1999); To expand the
coverage of the countervailing duty law with respect to international consortia, S.Amdt. 321, 100th Cong, 1st sess.
(1987).
150 Draft General Council Decision: Procedures to Strengthen the Negotiating Function of the WTO, WTO Doc.
WT/GC/W/764, February 15, 2019.
151 SCM Agreement art. 11.9.
Congressional Research Service
19

link to page 24

Table 1. De Minimis and Negligible Import Thresholds
De Minimis
Negligible Import

Threshold
Threshold
Developed
1%
3%
Countries
Developing
2%
4%
Countries
Least-Developed
3%
4%
Countries
Source: Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), P.L. 103-65 (December 8, 1994) § 222(d), 263(a), 108 Stat.
4809, 4871, 4911, codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. §§1671b(b)(4), 1677(24)(b).
The United States Trade Representative (USTR) determines eligibility for special and differential
treatment under U.S. CVD law.152 USTR published the first list of eligible countries on June 2,
1998.153 On February 10, 2020, the USTR revised that list for the first time. 154 As part of its
revision, the USTR took into consideration: (1) whether the per capita gross national income
(GNI) is below the World Bank’s high-income classification ($12,375 in 2019); (2) whether the
country accounts for more than 0.5% of world trade; and (3) other factors such as membership in
the OECD, the European Union, or Group of 20 (G-20).155 Because of the new criteria, several
countries became ineligible for special and differential treatment under U.S. CVD law (Table 2).
In addition, the USTR changed the rules for modifying the list to make future changes without
having to go through a rulemaking.156 The new list and the changes for how USTR will update the
list comport with long-running U.S. concerns about eligibility for special and differential
treatment under various trade commitments, and signals that the United States will take a more
targeted approach with respect to eligibility for such treatment under U.S. CVD law. Which WTO
members qualify for special and differential treatment has been an issue of concern for many
Members of Congress.157
Table 2. Countries Removed from the List of Countries Eligible for Special and
Differential Treatment under U.S. CVD Law
Country Removed
Reasons for Removal
Antigua and Barbuda
World Bank High Income Country

152 Uruguay Round Agreements Act, P.L. 103-65 (December 8, 1994) §§ 222(d), 263(a), 108 Stat. 4809, 4871, 4911.
codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. §1677.
153 USTR, “Developing and Least-Developed Country Designations under the Countervailing Duty Law,” 63 Federal
Register 29945, June 2, 1998.
154 USTR, “Designations of Developing and Least-Developed Countries under the Countervailing Duty Law,” 85
Federal Register 7613, February 10, 2020.
155 Ibid.
156 USTR, “Removal of Rule Designating Developing and Least-Developed Country Designations Under the
Countervailing Duty Law,” 85 Federal Register 7448, February 10, 2020.
157 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should reaffirm its commitment as a
member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and work with other WTO members to achieve reforms at the WTO
that improve the speed and predictability of dispute settlement, address longstanding concerns with the WTO's
Appellate Body, increase transparency at the WTO, ensure that WTO members invoke special and differential
treatment reserved for developing countries only in fair and appropriate circumstances, and update the WTO rules to
address the needs of the United States and other free and open economies in the 21st century, H.Res. 382, 117th Cong.,
1st sess. (2021).
Congressional Research Service
20

Country Removed
Reasons for Removal
Argentina
G20 Member
Bahrain
World Bank High Income Country
Barbados
World Bank High Income Country
Belize
Not Stated
Brazil
G20 Member, Significant Share of World Trade (>0.5%)
Chile
World Bank High Income Country
Colombia
OECD Member or Applicant
Republic of the Congo
Not Stated
Costa Rica
OECD Member or Applicant
India
G20 Member, Significant Share of World Trade (>0.5%)
Indonesia
G20 Member, Significant Share of World Trade (>0.5%)
Malaysia
Significant Share of World Trade (>0.5%)
Malta
EU Membership, World Bank High Income Country
Panama
World Bank High Income Country
Slovenia
EU Membership, World Bank High Income Country
South Africa
G20 Member
St. Kitts and Nevis
World Bank High Income Country
Thailand
Significant Share of World Trade (>0.5%)
Trinidad and Tobago
World Bank High Income Country
Uruguay
World Bank High Income Country
Vietnam
Significant Share of World Trade (>0.5%)
Source: CRS Comparison of USTR, “Developing and Least-Developed Country Designations under the
Countervailing Duty Law,” 63 Federal Register 29945, June 2, 1998 and USTR, “Designations of Developing and
Least-Developed Countries under the Countervailing Duty Law,” 85 Federal Register 7613, February 10, 2020.
Nonmarket Economies and CVDs
The application of CVDs to nonmarket economies (NMEs) has been an area of debate and
congressional action in the past decade. Much of the debate has centered on whether CVDs may
be applied to NMEs and, if so, how they should be applied. The debate has largely focused on the
application of trade remedies to goods imported from, and allegedly subsidized by, China.
For decades, Commerce had determined that nonmarket economies (NMEs) were not subject to
U.S. CVDs because subsidies could not exist in such economies.158 Antidumping was the remedy
traditionally applied to NMEs. In 2007, Commerce changed its policy.159 After an adverse ruling

158 In 1984, Commerce determined “that bounties or grants within the meaning of section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), cannot be found in nonmarket economies.” Department of Commerce, “Carbon Steel Wire Rod
from Czechoslovakia: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination,” 49 Federal Register 19370-01, May 7,
1984. In 1986, the Federal Circuit agreed with commerce that NMEs were not subject to CVDs. Georgetown Steel
Corp. v. United States, 801 F.2d 1308, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The European Union (EU) similarly had long held that
NMEs were not subject to CVDs before changing its policies with respect to China in the past decade.
159 Memorandum from Shauna Lee-Alaia and Lawrence Norton, Office of Policy, Imp. Admin., to David M. Spooner,
Congressional Research Service
21

in the courts,160 Congress amended the Tariff Act of 1930 to explicitly authorize Commerce to
place CVDs on NMEs.161 NMEs are now frequently subject to both antidumping duties and
CVDs,162 which has led to some adverse opinions on U.S. policies from the WTO’s Dispute
Settlement Appellate Body.163
NMEs, CVDs, and the WTO’s Appellate Body
U.S. CVD policies, and trade remedies in general, have been one of the central points of
contention between the United States and the WTO’s Appellate Body (AB), as WTO members
have increasingly filed disputes contending U.S. policies and practice violate WTO obligations.164
Congress might consider reevaluating those policies or renegotiating the agreement underlying
the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and SCM Agreement.
During negotiations to establish the WTO, Congress required the President to ensure that robust
dispute resolution provisions were included in the final agreement.165 As a result, the agreements
establishing the WTO included the DSU, which provides for an enforceable means by which
members can resolve disputes over WTO commitments and obligations.166
The United States has generally been successful in DSU proceedings with the exception of one
area—trade remedies.167 Trade remedy disputes in general make up the largest portion of the
WTO’s dispute settlement process with CVDs being the second most frequently disputed remedy
(after antidumping).168 Of the first 600 disputes filed under the DSU, at least 42 centered on the
application of CVDs.169 As the most frequent user of CVDs, the United States was the respondent

Asst. Sec’y, Imp. Admin., Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic of
China - Whether the Analytical Elements of Georgetown Steel Opinion Are Applicable to China’s Present-Day
Economy (Mar. 29, 2007); Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, “Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination,” 72 Federal Register
60645, October 25, 2007; Wentong Zheng, “Trade Law’s Responses to the Rise of China,” Berkeley Journal of
International Law 34, no. 2 (Fall 2016), p. 132.
160 GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 666 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
161 An Act to Apply the Countervailing Duty Provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 to Nonmarket Economy Countries,
and for Other Purposes, P.L. 112-99, §1; 126 Stat. 265.
162 Richard Lockridge, “Doubling Down in Non Market Economies: The Inequitable Application of Trade Remedies
Against China and the Case for a new WTO Institution,” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 118
(2015).
163 E.g., Appellate Body Report, United States—Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain
Products from China, WTO Doc. WT/DS379/AB/R (adopted March 25, 2011).
164 E.g., Chad P. Bown and Soumaya Keynes, Why Trump shot the sheriff: The end of WTO dispute settlement 1.0,
Working Paper 20-4, Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020. Terence P. Stewart and Elizabeth J.
Drake, How the WTO Undermines U.S. Trade Remedy Enforcement (Washington, DC: Alliance for American
Manufacturing, 2017).
165 The legislative authority for the negotiations over the establishment of the WTO directed the executive “to ensure
that such mechanisms within the GATT and GATT agreements provide for more effective and expeditious resolution
of disputes and enable better enforcement of United States rights.” Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,
P.L. 100-418 (August 23, 1988). See also CRS In Focus IF10645, Dispute Settlement in the WTO and U.S. Trade
Agreements, by Ian F. Fergusson. The Trade Promotion Authority granted in 2015 continues to support the inclusion of
dispute resolution provisions in trade agreements. TPA 2015 §102(b)(16)(A), 129 Stat.at 330, codified as amended at
19 U.S.C. 4201(b)(16)(A).
166 See also CRS In Focus IF10645, Dispute Settlement in the WTO and U.S. Trade Agreements, by Ian F. Fergusson.
167 Based on CRS analysis.
168 Blonigen et al., “Dumping and Antidumping Duties,” p. 41.
169Based on CRS analysis.
Congressional Research Service
22

in most of those disputes.170 Respondents have generally lost cases brought against trade remedies
and the panel reports in disputes on trade remedies are appealed more often than not.171
Because of the AB and panel opinions on trade remedies, recent U.S. administrations have
criticized the WTO’s dispute settlement system. Congress has also expressed concerns about the
DSU and the AB.172 During the Obama Administration, the United States began blocking the
appointment of new AB members to replace those whose terms had expired.173 This policy
continued under the Trump Administration and, in December 2019, the AB fell below the
required number of members necessary to function.174 The AB’s opinions on trade remedies were
one of the factors cited by the USTR that motivated the decision to block the appointments.175 In
a report issued shortly after the AB ceased to function, USTR identified six areas of AB
interpretive “errors” that the USTR argues have “raised substantive concerns and undermine the
WTO.”176 Five of the six concerned trade remedies; three of those five concerned CVDs.177
USTR’s CVD-related concerns expressed in the report were primarily related to the AB’s
decisions on the application of CVDs to NMEs in general, and to China in particular.178
In the 117th Congress, some Members have continued to express concerns about the AB’s reports
with respect to CVDs. A resolution introduced in the Senate would direct the USTR to “ensure

170 The United States was a respondent in at least 26 CVD cases. It is difficult to categorize DSU outcomes in terms of
wins and losses. But, of those 26 CVD cases, 18 have advanced past the panel stage or been otherwise dispensed with.
Of those 18, in at least 12 the complainants have requested authorization to retaliate, been granted that authorization,
initiated compliance proceedings, or the United States has notified that it has implemented the DSB’srecommendations.
171 Bown and Keynes, Why Trump Shot the Sheriff, p. 12.
172 TPA 2015 §102(b)(16)(C), 129 Stat. at 330, codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. §4201(b)(16)(C):
The principal negotiating objectives of the United States with respect to dispute settlement and
enforcement of trade agreements are … to seek adherence by panels convened under the Dispute
Settlement Understanding and by the Appellate Body to (i) the mandate of those panels and the
Appellate Body to apply the WTO Agreement as written, without adding to or diminishing rights
and obligations under the Agreement; and (ii) the standard of review applicable under the Uruguay
Round Agreement involved in the dispute, including greater deference, where appropriate, to the
fact finding and technical expertise of national investigating authorities.
173 “United States Continues to Block New Appellate Body Members for the World Trade Organization, Risking the
Collapse of the Appellate Process,” American Journal of International Law 113, no. 4 (October 2019); CRS Legal
Sidebar LSB10385, The WTO’s Appellate Body Loses Its Quorum: Is This the Beginning of the End for the “Rules-
Based Trading System”?, by Brandon J. Murrill.
174 Ibid. CRS Report R45417, World Trade Organization: Overview and Future Direction, coordinated by Cathleen D.
Cimino-Isaacs.
175 United States Trade Representative, 2019 Trade Policy Agenda and 2018 Annual Report, p. 148:
For many years, the United States and other WTO Members have also been sounding the alarm
about the Appellate Body in areas as varied as subsidies, antidumping and countervailing duties,
standards under the TBT Agreement, and safeguards. Such overreach restricts the ability of the
United States to regulate in the public interest or protect U.S. workers and businesses against unfair
trading practices. The United States shares the view that it is “the collective responsibility of all
Members to ensure the proper functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system, including the
Appellate Body.”
As a result, the United States was not prepared to agree to launch the process to fill vacancies on
the WTO Appellate Body without WTO Members engaging with and addressing these critical
issues.
176 United States Trade Representative, Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization, February 2020,
pp. iii-iv. Capitalization altered. Hereinafter “USTR Report.”
177 Ibid.
178 Ibid. See discussion below.
Congressional Research Service
23

link to page 33

that incorrect interpretations by the Appellate Body, including with respect to … the Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, are corrected, and not to be deemed precedential.”179
As Congress considers the future U.S. relationship with the WTO and the multilateral rules-based
trading system, it might address the role that its CVD policies have played in straining that
relationship. For example, the most recent TPA expired on July 1, 2021. Should Congress
reauthorize TPA, it may choose to include as negotiating objectives that the President revise the
WTO’s DSU or the SCM Agreement to address some of these issues. One trade policy expert and
former Appellate Body member, has suggested a more specific approach to address some of the
U.S. concerns, namely that disputes over trade remedies might be handled by a specialized
chamber of the Appellate Body or by eliminating appeals from panel decisions in trade remedy
disputes.180 Alternatively, Congress could amend U.S. CVD laws (as it has done in the past) or
encourage or direct Commerce to address some of the WTO members’ and Appellate Body’s
concerns. Congress could also weigh in on proposals to reform the SCM Agreement as a whole to
address some of the concerns expressed by policymakers about the AB’s interpretation of the
agreement (see “Reforming the SCM Agreement” below).
The USTR has highlighted the following concerns with respect to the AB’s handling of CVD
issues.
What is a “Public Body?”
The SCM Agreement allows the imposition of CVDs on certain subsidies provided by “by a
government or any public body.”181 The WTO AB interpreted “public body” to mean entities that
have the power to regulate, control, supervise, or control the conduct of individuals.182 As a result,
the AB held that “the mere fact that a government is the majority shareholder of an entity does not
demonstrate that the government exercises meaningful control over the conduct of that entity,
much less that the government has bestowed it with governmental authority” and thus the fact
that an enterprise is state-owned is not enough to bring it within the scope of the SCM
Agreement.183 The USTR, however, contends that by interpreting the term so narrowly, the AB
has impermissibly excluded many state-owned enterprises from counting as public bodies and
“significantly limited the ability of governments to effectively combat unfairly subsidized
imports.”184 Other WTO Members have also raised concerns about the AB’s interpretation.185 For

179 Expressing the sense of the Senate that, while the United States finds value and usefulness in the World Trade
Organization in fulfilling the needs of the United States and other free and open economies in the 21st century,
significant reforms at the World Trade Organization are needed and the United States must therefore continue to
demonstrate leadership to achieve those reforms, S.Res. 101, 117th Cong., 1st sess. (2021).
180 Jennifer Hillman, “Three Approaches to Fixing the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body: The Good, the Bad
and the Ugly,” Institute of International Economic Law Issue Briefs, December 10, 2018, pp. 4-7, available at
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Hillman-Good-Bad-Ugly-Fix-to-WTO-AB.pdf.
181 SCM Agreement art. 1(a)(1).
182 Appellate Body Report, United States — Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products
from China, ¶ 290, 310, 317, WTO Doc. WT/DS379/AB/R (adopted March 25, 2011); Appellate Body Report, United
States — Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, ¶ 4.29 ¶ 4.37, WTO
Doc. WT/DS436/AB/R (adopted December 29, 2014).
183 Appellate Body Report, United States — Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products
from China, ¶ 318: “[T]he mere fact that a government is the majority shareholder of an entity does not demonstrate
that the government exercises meaningful control over the conduct of that entity, much less that the government has
bestowed it with governmental authority.”
184 USTR Report pp. 82, 85.
185 World Trade Organization, Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of the Meeting Held on March 25, 2011, ¶¶ 103-127,
Congressional Research Service
24

example, in January 2020, the European Union, Japan, and the United States issued a joint
statement in which they “agreed that the interpretation of ‘public body’ by the WTO Appellate
Body in several reports undermines the effectiveness of WTO subsidy rules” and argued that “[t]o
determine that an entity is a public body, it is not necessary to find that the entity ‘possesses,
exercises or is vested with governmental authority.’”186
Can Members Use Out-of-Country Benchmarks to Measure a Subsidy?
Under the SCM Agreement, when a government provides or purchases goods or services for “less
than adequate remuneration,” it has “conferred a benefit” within the meaning of the agreement.187
The agreement provides the adequacy of remuneration “shall be determined in relation to
prevailing market conditions for the good or service in question in the country of provision or
purchase.”188 In the past, the United States has used out-of-country measures when Commerce
has determined that a government’s involvement in the relevant market was so pervasive that
there was no undistorted domestic market that could serve as a benchmark for determining
whether remuneration was adequate and determining the amount of the subsidy to be offset by
CVDs. While the AB has held that using an out-of-country benchmark is permissible under the
SCM Agreement,189 it has required extensive quantitative documentary evidence presented on a
case-by-case to justify using one.190 The USTR has argued that the requirements are too onerous
and may be “impossible to meet…in an economy dominated by state-owned enterprises.”191
Can WTO Members Impose both Antidumping and Countervailing Duties?
Since 2006, Commerce has argued that CVDs and antidumping duties may be applied
simultaneously. According to the USTR, “the sole limitation on the simultaneous application of
antidumping and countervailing duty measures applies in certain circumstances of export
subsidization.”192 However, because of the methods used by Commerce to determine antidumping
duties for NMEs, applying both types of duties to NMEs may result in a subsidy being offset
twice. The AB has held that countries must avoid such “double counting.”193 The USTR has

WTO Doc. WT/DSB/M/294.
186 Joint Statement of the Trilateral Meeting of the Trade Ministers of Japan, the United States and the European Union,
January 14, 2020.
187 SCM Agreement art. 14(d).
188 SCM Agreement art. 14(d).
189 Appellate Body Report, United States — Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to certain Softwood
Lumber from Canada, ¶¶ 96, 103, WTO Doc: WT/DS257/AB/R, (adopted February 17, 2004).
190 Appellate Body Report, United States — Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India, ¶ 4.153, WTO Doc: WT/DS436/AB/R (adopted December 19, 2014); Article 21.5 DSU Appellate
Body Report, United States — Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China (Article 21.5), ¶¶5.155,
5.250, WTO Doc: WT/DS437/AB/RW (adopted August 15, 2019): In a separate opinion, one member disagreed with
the majority’s view, which he or she argued had imposed “an obligation on investigating authorities to always justify
recourse to out-of-country prices through a quantitative analysis of in-country prices themselves, regardless of whether
those prices have already been found to be distorted, including in cases where they have not even been placed on the
record.”
191 USTR Report, p. 109.
192 Ibid., p. 114.
193 Appellate Body Report, United States — Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products
from China, WTO Doc: WT/DS379/AB/R (adopted March 25, 2011); Appellate Body Report, United States —
Countervailing and Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Products from China, WTO Doc: WT/DS449/AB/R (adopted
July 22, 2014).
Congressional Research Service
25

asserted that the AB’s decision imposes a significant burden on administering authorities that will
make addressing trade-distorting subsidies by NMEs more difficult.194
New Applications of CVDs
CVDs to Address Currency Manipulation
Over the past decade, currency manipulation, particularly that allegedly done by China, emerged
as a key concern among certain U.S. policymakers and Members of Congress.195 Some analysts
have argued that “currency manipulation is the functional equivalent of […] a subsidy,”196 and
have advocated using countervailing duties as a “sector-specific, microeconomic response to the
across-the-board, macroeconomic problem of currency manipulation.”197 Congress has also, in
the past, considered amending U.S. CVD law to define currency undervaluation as a
countervailable subsidy, but declined to do so.198
In 2019, Commerce proposed a rule that would allow it to consider currency undervaluation to be
a countervailable subsidy.199 The 47 comments that were submitted in response were mixed.200
Firms and trade groups associated with the steel and auto industries and other groups supported
the proposed change. Opponents to the proposed rule included the China Chamber of
International Commerce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, policy experts from several research
organizations, and a former U.S. Treasury official.

194 USTR Report, p. 119.
195 E.g., Title VII of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, P.L. 112-125 (Feb. 24, 2016) § 701,
130 Stat. 122, 195, codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. §4421; The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, U.S.-
Mex.-Can. art. 33.4, agreed to Oct.1, 2018; U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of International Affairs,
Macroeconomic and Foreign Exchange Policies of Major Trading Partners of the United States, Report to Congress,
May 2019; U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Designates China as a Currency Manipulator,” August 4, 2019,
available at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm751. See also CRS In Focus IF10049, Exchange Rates
and Currency Manipulation, by Rebecca M. Nelson; CRS Insight IN11138, Currency Manipulation and
Countervailing Duties, by Rebecca M. Nelson and Christopher A. Casey. Such concerns have emerged periodically
since the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system. E.g., Title III, Subtitle A of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, P.L. 100-418 (August 23, 1988), 102 Stat. 1107, 1373-1374, codified as amended at 22
U.S.C. §§5304-5305: The Secretary of the Treasury must “consider whether countries manipulate the rate of exchange
between their currency and the United States dollar for purposes of preventing effective balance of payments
adjustments or gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade.”
196 C. Fred Bergsten, “Commerce Departments Proposal to Curb Currency Manipulation Uses the Wrong Tool,”
Peterson Institute for International Economics, June 4, 2019, available at https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-
policy-watch/commerce-departments-proposal-curb-currency-manipulation-uses.
197 C. Fred Bergsten and Joseph E. Gagnon, Currency Conflict and Trade Policy: A New Strategy for the United States
(Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2017), pp. 163-165.
198 E.g., Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, H.R. 2378, 111th Cong. (2009) §2; Trade Facilitation and Trade
Enforcement Act of 2015, S. 1269, 114th Cong. (2015) §702. See also Doug Palmer, “Lawmakers Launch New Effort
to Pass China Currency Bill,” Reuters, March 20, 2013; Jonathan Weisman, “Debate Over Currency Cheating
Intensifies in Trade Talks,” New York Times, May 19, 2015; Jackie Calmes, “Senate Sends Sweeping Trade
Enforcement Bill to Obama,” New York Times, February 11, 2016.
199 Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, “Modification of Regulations Regarding Benefit and
Specificity in Countervailing Duty Proceedings; Proposed Rule and Request for Comments,” 84 Federal Register
24406 (May 28, 2019).
200 Docket ITA-2019-0002, FR Doc # 2019-11197, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/ITA-2019-
0002-0002/comment.
Congressional Research Service
26

Some experts have suggested that currency manipulation lacks the required specificity to be
countervailable under the SCM Agreement and note that such a policy will likely be challenged at
the WTO.201 Commerce asserts that “enterprises that buy or sell goods internationally (i.e.,
enterprises in the traded goods sector of an economy) can comprise a ‘group’ of enterprises for
specificity purposes.”202 That is, currency manipulation is specific in that it benefits exporters.203
At least one expert has argued that currency manipulation constitutes a “prohibited” export
subsidy since they are effectively contingent on exports (a producer gains no advantage from a
manipulated currency if they do not export their goods) and thus does not require specificity.204
Furthermore, an interpretive note to Article VI of the GATT provides that “[m]ultiple currency
practices can in certain circumstances constitute a subsidy to exports which may be met by
countervailing duties.”205
Additionally. India and Brazil in their submissions to Commerce suggested that currency
undervaluation might not count as a “financial contribution,” as defined in the SCM Agreement
and U.S. law and because it was not a “direct transfer of funds.”206 In response, Commerce
reiterated its position that “[t]he receipt of domestic currency from an authority…in exchange for
U.S. dollars could constitute the financial contribution.”207
In 2020, the Commerce Department issued a final rule implementing this policy administratively,
without the need for amending legislation.208 These new regulations direct Commerce to
“consider whether a benefit is conferred from the exchange of United States dollars for the
currency of a country under review or investigation.”209 In making that determination, Commerce
is directed to “request that the Secretary of the Treasury provide its evaluation and conclusion.”210
In its final rule, Commerce noted that “In recognition of Treasury’s experience in the area of

201 C. Fred Bergsten and Joseph E. Gagnon, “Comments on Proposed Modification of Regulations for Countervailing
Duty Proceedings,” June 25, 2019, available at https://www.piie.com/commentary/testimonies/comments-proposed-
modification-regulations-countervailing-duty-proceedings.
202 Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, “Modification of Regulations Regarding Benefit and
Specificity in Countervailing Duty Proceedings,” 85 Federal Register 6031, February 4, 2020; 19 C.F.R. § 351.502.
203 International Trade Administration, “Modification of Regulations Regarding Benefit and Specificity in
Countervailing Duty Proceedings,” 85 Federal Register 6031.
204 Alusio de Lima-Campos, “Currency Misalignments and Trade: A Path to a Solution,” Society of International
Economic Law Working Paper No. 2014/1, June 16, 2014, p. 21; Aluisio de Lima-Campos, Juan Antonio Gaviria, “A
Case for Misaligned Currencies as Countervailable Subsidies,” Journal of World Trade 46, no. 5 (2012).
205 GATT 1994 art. 6 (Ad Note).
206 E.g., Government of Brazil, Submission of the Government of Brazil on Modification of Regulations Regarding
Benefit and Specificity in Countervailing Duty Proceedings, Comment on FR Doc # 2019-11197, Comment ID: ITA-
2019-0002-0030, https://downloads.regulations.gov/ITA-2019-0002-0030/attachment_1.pdf; Government of India,
Comments on U.S. Commerce’s Proposal to Modify Regulations in Countervailing Duty Proceedings, Comment on FR
Doc # 2019-11197, Comment ID: ITA-2019-0002-0014, https://downloads.regulations.gov/ITA-2019-0002-
0014/attachment_1.pdf; Jeffrey M. Winton et al., Modification of Regulations Regarding Benefit and Specificity in
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, Comment on FR Doc # 2019-11197, Comment ID: ITA-2019-0002-0021,
https://downloads.regulations.gov/ITA-2019-0002-0021/attachment_1.pdf. U.S. law defines a financial contribution as
“the direct transfer of funds,” “foregoing or not collecting revenue that is otherwise due,” “providing goods or services,
other than general infrastructure,” or “purchasing goods.” 19 U.S.C. §1677(5)(D).
207 International Trade Administration, “Modification of Regulations Regarding Benefit and Specificity in
Countervailing Duty Proceedings,” 85 Federal Register 6031, 6034.
208 International Trade Administration, “Modification of Regulations Regarding Benefit and Specificity in
Countervailing Duty Proceedings,” 85 Federal Register 6031.
209 19 C.F.R. § 351.528(a).
210 19 C.F.R. § 351.528(c).
Congressional Research Service
27

evaluating currency undervaluation, Commerce will defer to Treasury’s expertise,” but, they
continued, “[Commerce] will not delegate to Treasury the ultimate determination of whether
currency undervaluation involves a countervailable subsidy in a given case.”211
In its 2020 annual report on the United States, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) raised
concerns regarding the new rule, including the risks it poses to the multilateral trade and
international monetary system and potential influence on monetary policy.212 IMF staff also
warned that the new rule may encourage other countries to establish similar policies.213
Critics have suggested that CVDs are the wrong tool to address currency manipulation. As a pair
of economists argued:
Like all countervailing duties, it would require the petitioning industry to demonstrate that
it was injured by the subsidized product. It would cover only US imports of the individual
product and exclude the harm caused by all other exports from the subsidizing country as
well as the implied protection against all imports to the subsidizing country from the United
States and elsewhere.214
Congress has considered, and declined, to enact legislation on this issue in the past. Congress may
consider whether the ITA’s new policy effectively addresses concerns some Members have raised
about the impact of currency manipulation on U.S. trade, or whether additional or different tools
may be necessary, as well as concerns about whether the policy complies with the SCM
Agreement. Some Members have recently introduced legislation that would provide further
guidance on this issue.215
Since going into effect, the ITA has made two affirmative findings, one against twist ties from
China216 and another against tires from Vietnam.217 The WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)
and AB have not yet been asked whether the measures comply with the SCM Agreement.
Transnational Subsidies and Applications of CVDs to Third Countries
Recently, the EU (the second largest user of CVDs) applied CVDs to goods manufactured in one
country yet subsidized by another. In June 2020, the EU imposed CVDs on certain glass fiber
fabrics imported from Egypt.218 The merchandise at issue was manufactured by Jushi Egypt and
Hengshi Egypt, two Egyptian subsidiaries of the China National Building Materials Group, a
Chinese SOE.219 Jushi and Hengshi manufactured the merchandise in the Suez Economic and
Trade Cooperation Zone (SETC-Zone), a special economic zone which was jointly established by

211 Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, “Modification of Regulations Regarding Benefit and
Specificity in Countervailing Duty Proceedings,” 85 Federal Register 6031, 6038.
212 International Monetary Fund, “Staff Report,” 2020 Article IV Consultation, July 17, 2020, p. 3.
213 Ibid., p.43.
214 Bergsten and Gagnon, “Comments on Proposed Modification of Regulations for Countervailing Duty Proceedings.”
215 Eliminating Global Market Distortions To Protect American Jobs Act of 2021, S. 1187, 117th Cong., 1st sess. (2021).
216 Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, “Twist Ties From the People's Republic of China:
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination,” 86 Federal Register 10542, February 22, 2021.
217 Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, “Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination,” 86 Federal Register 28566,
May 27, 2021.
218 Implementing Regulation 2020/776, “Imposing Definitive Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Woven
and/or Stitched Glass Fibre Fabrics Originating in the Chinese Mainland and Egypt,” Official Journal of the European
Union, L 189, June 15, 2020, pp. 1–170.
219 Ibid. ¶¶88, 93.
Congressional Research Service
28

the Government of China (GOC) and Government of Egypt (GOE).220 The EU determined that
“the GOE has actively sought to support the zone not only directly by the provision of land and
tax breaks but also indirectly, through agreed assistance of the Chinese government for the
development of the SETC-Zone in its territory.”221 The EU concluded that countervailable
subsidies “should include not only measures directly emanating from the GOE but also those
measures by the GOC which can be attributed to the GOE on the basis of the available
evidence.”222 The GOC and GOE objected. The imposition of these CVDs was followed by a new
White Paper by the EU Commission proposing a new approach to managing foreign subsidies. 223
As the EU moves to counter new forms of foreign subsidization abroad, Congress may be
interested in reviewing U.S. CVD laws and regulations to determine whether they wish to
legislate similar changes, or take an alternative approach. A recently introduced bill proposes a
similar solution, amending U.S. CVD law to include transnational subsidies.224
Reforming the SCM Agreement
The increase in the use of CVDs, a measure designed to deal with subsidies that are not in
compliance with the SCM Agreement, as well as the controversies over the applicability of the
agreement to certain types of subsidies (such as SOEs), has led some WTO Members, including
the United States, to propose reforming the SCM Agreement, which has not been updated since it
was drafted in 1994.
In December 2017, then-USTR Robert E. Lighthizer and his counterparts in the EU and Japan
announced plans to increase trilateral cooperation between the three countries to address “severe
excess capacity in key sectors exacerbated by government-financed and supported capacity
expansion, unfair competitive conditions caused by large market-distorting subsidies and state
owned enterprises, forced technology transfer, and local content requirements and preferences.”225
In January 2020, the three countries presented a set of proposed reforms to the SCM Agreement
(Trilateral Proposal). The Trilateral Proposal included the expansion of the list of prohibited
subsidies to include:
 unlimited guarantees;
 subsidies to an insolvent or ailing enterprise in the absence of a credible
restructuring plan;
 subsidies to enterprises unable to obtain long-term financing or investment from
independent commercial sources operating in sectors or industries in
overcapacity; and

220 Ibid. ¶15.
221 Ibid. ¶676.
222 Ibid. ¶684.
223 European Commission, White Paper on Levelling the Playing Field as Regards Foreign Subsidies, COM(2020) 253,
June 17, 2020; European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on
Foreign Subsidies Distorting the Internal Market, COM(2021) 223.
224 S. 1187 §201.
225 USTR, Joint Statement by the United States, European Union and Japan at MC11, December 12, 2017, available at
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/december/joint-statement-united-states; USTR,
Joint Readout from Meeting of the United States, European Union and Japan in Brussels, March 10, 2018, available at
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/march/joint-readout-meeting-united-states.
Congressional Research Service
29

 certain direct forgiveness of debt.226
The Trilateral Proposal also addressed other issues including the relative lack of compliance with
the requirement to notify the WTO Secretariat of a subsidy, and potential methods of addressing
overcapacity in certain industries.
Additionally, the proposal included several changes that would impact CVDs. First, the Trilateral
Proposal would shift the burden of proof for the imposition of CVDs. Currently, a country
imposing CVDs must demonstrate that a subsidy has caused or threatened material injury to a
domestic industry. 227 The Trilateral Proposal inverts that burden to require the subsidizing
member to “demonstrate that there are no serious negative trade or capacity effects and that there
is effective transparency about the subsidy in question.”228 Second, the Trilateral Proposal also
clarifies that the term “public body” includes SOEs, and would overturn the WTO AB’s
determination that a public body must “possesses, exercises or [be] vested with governmental
authority.”229
Congress, as it considers whether to renew the recently-expired TPA, or more generally may
weigh in on these proposals and provide guidance to the administration on reforming the SCM
Agreement to address these new concerns.
Cost of Seeking the Imposition of CVDs and Small and Medium-
Sized Businesses Access
Since the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 made the CVD petitioning process more legalistic and
expensive,230 Many Members of Congress have repeatedly expressed concern with the challenges
small businesses face when pursuing the imposition of trade remedies.231 Just four years after the
new process went into effect, Senator George J. Mitchell noted, “$100,000 is regarded as a bare
minimum to prosecute a case, and total costs are frequently much greater … in some cases the
legal and consulting fees have approached the amount of subsidies to be countervailed.”232 Then-
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration at Commerce Gary Horlick observed that

226 USTR, Joint Statement of the Trilateral Meeting of the Trade Ministers of Japan, the United States and the European
Union, January 14, 2020, available at https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-
releases/2020/january/joint-statement-trilateral-meeting-trade-ministers-japan-united-states-and-european-union.
227 GATT Article VI, para. 6; SCM Agreement art. 15.1.
228 USTR, Joint Statement of the Trilateral Meeting of the Trade Ministers of Japan, the United States and the European
Union, January 14, 2020.
229 Ibid.
230 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, Options to Improve the Trade
Remedy Laws, Part I, hearings, 98th Cong., 1st sess., 1983, Serial 98-14 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1983), p. 244; U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, Options to Improve the Trade Remedy
Laws, Part II, hearings, 98th Cong., 1st sess., 1983, Serial 98-15 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1983), p. 538.
231 U.S. Congress, Options to Improve the Trade Remedy Laws, Part I, p. 1: “The subcommittee is particularly
interested in determining how the expense and time involved in processing cases under current procedures might be
reduced in order to ensure U.S. industry and labor, including small business, access to trade remedies.” See Also, U.S.
Congress, Options to Improve the Trade Remedy Laws, Part II, p. 1.
232 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on International Trade, Problems of Access by Small
Business to Trade Remedies, hearings, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., April 6, 1984, S.Hrg. 98-1043, p. 4-5. Senator Mitchell
attributed the cost to the changes in the AD/CVD process that made it more litigation-like and along with the
surplusage of lawyers in the United States, joking: “Under [a recent trade agreement], China will sell to the U.S.
500,000 square yards of surplus fabric, and the U.S. will ship to China 500,000 surplus lawyers. The agreement will
help each country produce frivolous suits.”
Congressional Research Service
30

the new procedures had “increased the expense of these cases and made [trade remedies], in
essence, unavailable to small business.”233
Nearly 40 years later, concerns about the cost and difficulties of pursuing CVDs for small and
medium-sized businesses remain. In 1983, it was estimated that pursuing antidumping or
countervailing duties cost a minimum of $100,000 (approximately $235,000 in 2013 dollars).234
In 2013, the GAO found that the cost had increased to approximately $1-2 million,235 five to ten
times in excess of inflation.236
To help small businesses jump through what one congressional hearing witness described as “a
series of flaming hoops before they can get the kind of import relief they are entitled to,” 237
Congress established the Trade Remedy Assistance Office (TRAO) in the USITC in 1984 to
provide information and technical assistance to eligible small businesses.238 Today, TRAO
provides “informal advice and assistance, including informal legal advice, intended to enable
eligible small businesses to determine the appropriateness of pursuing particular trade remedies,
to prepare petitions and complaints (other than those which are frivolous in the opinion of the
agency) and to seek to obtain the remedies and benefits available under the trade laws.”239 In
addition, the ITA provides petition counseling services.240
Despite these programs, filing a CVD petition is still a costly endeavor and tends to be used by a
few large industries.241 Access to trade remedies by small and medium-sized businesses continues
to be of concern to many Members of Congress.
One potential source of the increasing costs of petitioning for CVDs, according to industry
advocates, has been the need to file successive petitions for CVDs after offenders relocate
production or to respond to fraudulent repackaging, relabeling, and transshipment.242Some
industry observers and policymakers have responded, in part, to the problem of successive
petitions by advocating for what one recently-introduced bill calls “successive investigations,”
which would expedite and simplify the CVD investigation process when a petition is filed within

233 U.S. Congress, Options to Improve the Trade Remedy Laws, Part II, 538.
234 U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, Problems of Access by Small Business to Trade Remedies, p. 4. Adjusted using
the Consumer Price Index.
235 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Key Challenges to Small and
Medium-Sized Enterprises’ Pursuit of the Imposition of Trade Remedies, GAO-13-575, June 2013, p. 16.
236 Adjusted using the Consumer Price Index. Recently, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Finance, Michael
R. Wessel, a Commissioner on the bipartisan U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, estimated that
“each trade case takes about a year and a half for the first result and as much as five for a final and costs generally
between $1.5 and $3 million.” Qtd. in Margaret Spiegelman, “Lawyers: Portman, Brown-backed bill could bring big
changes to AD/CVD laws,” Inside U.S. Trade, April 22, 2021.
237 U.S. Congress, Options to Improve the Trade Remedy Laws, Part I, p. 241.
238 P.L. 98-573 (October 30, 1984) § 221, 98 Stat. 2948, 2989, codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1339.
239 19 C.F.R. §213.2(d); Regulations and guidance are available at 19 C.F.R. §213. See also USITC, “Trade Remedy
Assistance Program,” available at https://www.usitc.gov/offices/operations/trao.
240 ITA, “Petition Counseling,” available at https://www.trade.gov/ec-petition-counseling.
241 Spiegelman, “Lawyers: Portman, Brown-backed bill could bring big changes to AD/CVD laws.”
242 Scott Horsley, “A Mysterious Pencil Factory Sharpens Focus On Tariff Scams,” NPR, September 25, 2019,
available at https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/763537209/a-mysterious-pencil-factory-sharpens-focus-on-tariff-scams;
Sidley Austin, LLC, “As Part of Trend to Target China, Sens. Brown and Portman Introduce Updates to U.S.
Antidumping Duty/Countervailing Duty Laws,” April 28, 2021, available at
https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2021/04/as-part-of-trend-to-target-china-antidumping-
dutycountervailing-duty-laws; Pamela Bucy Pierson and Benjamin Patterson Bucy, “Trade Fraud: The Wild, New
Frontier of White Collar Crime,” Oregon Review of International Law 19, no. 1 (2018).
Congressional Research Service
31

two years to merchandise that is the same or similar to merchandise at issue in a concurrent or
recently completed investigation.243
Another possible solution to increasing costs, suggested by some policy analysts and Members of
Congress, has been to have the government more involved in identifying potential countervailable
subsidies. One proposal has been to encourage the ITA to self-initiate more investigations,
something it did for the first time in more than 25 years in November 2017.244 Congress may also
consider introducing legislation to encourage or require self-initiation. For example, a bill
introduced in the 117th Congress would create a task force charged specifically with identifying
potential countervailable subsidies.245 Others might argue that such changes could politicize
CVDs more than the current quasijudicial process.

Author Information

Christopher A. Casey
Liana Wong
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
Analyst in International Trade and Finance

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

243 S. 1187, Title I.
244 19 U.S.C. §1671a(a); Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, “Common Alloy Aluminum
Sheet From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value and Countervailing Duty
Investigations,” 82 Federal Register 57214, December 4, 2017. Prior to this case, last time the ITA self-initiated a
CVD investigation was 1991. Department of Commerce, “U.S. Department of Commerce Self-Initiates Historic
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations on Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From China,” Commerce
News, November 28, 2017.
245 Self-Initiation Trade Enforcement Act of 2021, S. 1510, 117th Cong., 1st sess. (2021).
Congressional Research Service
R46882 · VERSION 1 · NEW
32