News 05 Dec. 2024
Partner Dr. Alexandra G. Maier Recognized Again in Lexology Client Choice Award 2025, Mining Experts Category 2025
more
Event 23 Oct. 2024
Counsel Mohannad El Murtadi Suleiman to Speak at the 2nd Annual Africa Arbitration Day in New York
Event 18 Aug. 2023
Partner Borzu Sabahi Speaks at FDI Moot Shenzhen
News 25 Jul. 2023
Partner Eric Gilioli Ranked in Top 10 Influential Energy & Natural Resources Lawyers in Kazakhstan in Business Today
News 09 Apr. 2024
Curtis Announces New Partners and Counsels Across Offices in Spring 2024
Client Alert 28 Dec. 2023
U.S. to Impose Secondary Sanctions on Non-U.S. Banks For Financing Russia’s Defense Industry
News 28 Aug. 2024
Curtis Recognized for Excellence in Arbitration in Chambers Latin America Guide 2025
Event 22 Aug. 2023
Partner Dr. Claudia Frutos-Peterson to Speak at Arbitration and ADR Commission of the ICC Mexico
Publications 19 Dec. 2024
Curtis Partner, John Balouziyeh, Authors New Guide to Investing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the GCC
News 08 Oct. 2024
Curtis Boosts London Finance and Corporate Capability with Appointment of Partner Christopher Harrison
News 24 Aug. 2023
Curtis Attorneys Quoted in CoinDesk on FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s Strategy Ahead of His Criminal Trial
Client Alert 10 Jul. 2024
EU Adopts New Restrictive Measures Against Belarus
Client Alert 26 Jun. 2024
The EU Adopts its 14th Sanctions Package Against Russia
client alert
EU Adopts its 15th Sanctions Package Against Russia
The First Draft of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice
Client Alert 12 Jul. 2024
Please download the full client alert here.
On July 10, 2024, antidumping and countervailing duty petitions were filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) concerning imports of Certain Tungsten Shot from China. AD petitions concern unfair pricing practices (i.e., “dumping”), generally defined as selling imported goods in the U.S. market below their home market prices or the cost of production. CVD petitions concern competitive distortions caused by unfair government subsidies. If AD/CVD investigations are initiated by the DOC, they can lead to year-long investigations and the potential for additional duty liability for the imports concerned.
Importantly, although AD/CVD investigations center on the practices of foreign producers, exporters, and governments, it is the U.S. importer of record that is liable for any additional AD or CVD duties resulting from the investigations. Thus, both foreign producers/exporters and U.S. importers of the merchandise subject to AD/CVD investigations have a vested interest in their outcome. Given the rapid pace of such proceedings, affected foreign producers/exporters and U.S. importers are strongly encouraged to quickly assess the implications and determine whether to defend their interests in the investigations.
Petitioner(s)
The petitions in question were filed by Tungsten Parts Wyoming, Inc.
Product Scope
The products covered by the scope of the petitions are as follows:
The merchandise covered by the investigations is certain tungsten spheres or balls, also known as shot, that are 92.6 percent or greater tungsten by weight. In scope shot have a diameter ranging from 1.5 mm to 10.0 mm. Subject shot can be referred to as “Tungsten Super Shot.” Merchandise is covered regardless of the combination of compounds that comprise the non-tungsten material and whether or not the tungsten shot is additionally coated with another material, including but not limited to copper, nickel, iron or metallic alloys.
Tungsten shot subject to the investigations may be classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading: 8101.99.8000. Merchandise may also be entered under HTS subheadings 8482.91.0020 or 9306.21.0000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.
It is important to remember that it is the physical description of the product that is controlling. The provided HTSUS numbers are just for reference purposes only.
The AD/CVD Process
AD/CVD investigations are bifurcated proceedings administered by two government agencies -- the DOC and the ITC. The DOC controls the initiation process for any investigation and is also responsible for determining the degree of dumping or subsidization. The ITC is responsible for determining whether the imports concerned are causing or threaten to cause “material injury” to the U.S. domestic industry. Importantly, there must be affirmative findings of dumping and/or subsidization by the DOC and material injury or threat thereof by the ITC for the possibility of AD/CVD duties to apply through what is known as an AD or CVD “order.” If either agency reaches a negative conclusion, no order may be imposed.
AD/CVD investigations are also sequential, with staggered preliminary and final phase determinations issued by the DOC and the ITC. The first preliminary determination is issued by the ITC, followed by a preliminary DOC ruling. In the final phase, the DOC issues its final determination first, followed by the ITC. At the preliminary stage, if the ITC reaches a negative injury finding, the investigation is terminated. In the final phase proceedings, if either the DOC or ITC reach negative findings, the investigations are also terminated.
AD/CVD investigations are fact-intensive, characterized by short deadlines and significant data and document demands. The key investigative tool for both the DOC and the ITC is the questionnaire, with the DOC often relying on both an initial questionnaire and multiple supplemental questionnaires that follow thereafter. These are technical documents that require significant expertise to complete and submit in proper form.
In AD/CVD investigations, potential duty liability normally first accrues with release of the DOC’s preliminary determination. If AD or CVD margins are found, U.S. importers are required to begin posting deposits with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) on all entries of the imports under investigation moving forward. Depending on future circumstances, those deposits could be liquidated by CBP as additional duty liability, or refunded in part or in whole.
AD/CVD orders may be reviewed annually, and determined margins of dumping and subsidy revised on a retrospective basis, effecting entries made over the past year. This means that actual duty liability is initially unknown and may be more or less than deposits made over the preceding annual review period. AD/CVD orders are up for termination every 5 years under a “sunset” review process, but typically last 15 or more years.
Next Steps
The DOC will normally issue an initiation determination within 20 days of receipt of the petitions. Initiation delays are otherwise rare and typically involve questions of standing and whether the Department is satisfied that the petitions were filed on behalf of the U.S. domestic industry. Once initiation occurs, AD/CVD investigations proceed along a rapid timeline, making it critical for affected foreign producers/exporters and importers to quickly engage to understand the implications and determine whether to defend their interests in the proceeding. To illustrate, the ITC will issue questionnaires and typically schedule a staff conference with interested parties 21 days after the petition is filed, before rendering a preliminary determination 45 days after the petition is filed, as required by law.
Some of the important dates related to the instant petition(s) are set forth below:
AD Case Schedule
Incremental Days
Date
Notes
Petition Filed
0
10-Jul-24
Initiation
20
30-Jul-24
Commerce may take an additional 20 days to determine industry support for the petition; all deadlines thereafter would be extended by the same amount
ITC Staff Conference
1
31-Jul-24
ITC Preliminary Determination
24
24-Aug-24
DOC Preliminary Determination
165
5-Feb-25
This date assumes a "complicated case" under the statute and full extension of the deadline for the DOC preliminary determination; the earliest possible date would be 115 days after the ITC preliminary injury determination
DOC Final Determination
135
20-Jun-25
This date assumes full extension of the deadline under the statute; the earliest possible date would be 75 days after the preliminary determination
ITC Final Determination
45
4-Aug-25
If the DOC preliminary determination was negative, add 30 days to this deadline
CVD Case Schedule
105
7-Dec-24
Assumes no upstream subsidy allegation, which may extend the preliminary determination another 100 days. Also assumes "complicated" case full extension. At this stage, petitioners typically request alignment of the AD and CVD cases, with final determinations falling on the same AD final determination deadline
75
20-Feb-25
This date assumes no alignment with the DOC AD final determination (see notes on preliminary determination above)
6-Apr-25
* Note that these are estimated dates based on the statutory deadlines. They do not take into account if deadlines fall on a weekend (in which case the date will move to the next business day) or the lag between the deadline and publication of a decision in the Federal Register, which can add 3–5 days.
If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Curtis International Trade Team for more information.
International Trade
Trade Remedy Practice
Daniel Porter
Partner
Matthew McCullough
James Durling
Antonio Riva Palacio Lavin
Counsel
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 452 7373
news
Curtis Secures Early Victory for Colombia, Highlighting Sovereign Defense Excellence
publications
Curtis Trade Team Receives Top Ranking in Chambers Asia-Pacific 2025
We use cookies on our website to enhance your browsing experience, match your interests and assess our website performance. We do not share information with any third-party for marketing purposes. Please view our privacy policy to learn more about the use of cookies on our website. By continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies.