Sec. 2. Consequences of failure to cooperate with a request for information in an investigation
807 words·~4 min read·
/bill/113/s/2994/is/section-2A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ( 19 U.S.C. 1677e ) is amended— in subsection (b)— by redesignating paragraphs
(1)through
(4)as subparagraphs
(A)through (D), respectively, and by moving such subparagraphs, as so redesignated, 2 ems to the right; by striking and inserting the following: “ Adverse Inferences .—If Adverse Inferences .— If ; by striking under this title, may use and inserting the following: “under this title— may use ; and by striking facts otherwise available. Such adverse inference may include and inserting the following: “facts otherwise available; and is not required to determine, or make any adjustments to, a countervailable subsidy rate or weighted average dumping margin based on any assumptions about information the interested party would have provided if the interested party had complied with the request for information. An adverse inference under paragraph (1)(A) may include ; in subsection (c)— by striking and inserting the following: “ Corroboration of Secondary Information .—When the Corroboration of Secondary Information .— When the ; and by adding at the end the following: If the administrative authority or the Commission uses an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party under subsection (b)(1)(A), information provided by that party, including any dumping margin or subsidy rate calculated based on such information, shall not be considered secondary information under this subsection and shall not be subject to corroboration under paragraph (1), even if the information was submitted by that party in a separate proceeding under this title or a separate segment of the same proceeding. If the administering authority uses a countervailable subsidy rate or dumping margin in accordance with subsection (d)(1), the administering authority is not required to corroborate information relating to that rate or margin under paragraph
(1)if that rate or margin was calculated, in whole or in part, using information— submitted by an interested party described in subparagraph
(A)or
(B)of section 771(9), and certified by that interested party as accurate and complete to the best of that interested party's knowledge under section 782(b). ; and by adding at the end the following: If the administering authority uses an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party under subsection (b)(1)(A) in selecting among facts otherwise available, the administering authority may— in the case of a countervailing duty proceeding, use a subsidy rate— calculated with respect to a subsidy program involved in the proceeding that is the same or similar to the subsidy program for which a determination is to be made under this section, or, in the absence of such a program, any other subsidy program involved in the proceeding, calculated in another countervailing duty proceeding with respect to another subsidy program implemented by the country that is implementing the subsidy program for which a determination is to be made under this section unless the administering authority has evidence that exporters or producers of the subject merchandise could not have used such other subsidy program, or alleged in a petition filed under section 702(b) that was relied on by the administering authority to initiate the countervailing duty investigation, and in the case of an antidumping duty proceeding, use— a dumping margin based on any individual sale of the subject merchandise calculated with respect to any exporter or producer involved in the proceeding during the investigation or review, an individual weighted average dumping margin calculated with respect to any exporter or producer involved in the proceeding during the investigation or a review, any dumping margin alleged in a petition filed under section 732(b) that was relied on by the administering authority to initiate the antidumping duty investigation, or any dumping margin found in another antidumping duty proceeding with respect to a class or kind of merchandise that is the same or similar to and from the same country as subject merchandise involved in the proceeding. The administering authority has the discretion under paragraph (1), in selecting from among facts otherwise available, to apply any of the countervailable subsidy rates or dumping margins specified under that paragraph, including the highest such rate or margin. If the administering authority uses an adverse inference under subsection (b)(1)(A) in selecting among facts otherwise available, the administering authority is not required, for purposes of subsection
(c)or for any other purpose— to estimate what the countervailable subsidy rate or dumping margin would have been if the interested party found to have failed to cooperate under subsection (b)(1) had cooperated, or to demonstrate that the countervailable subsidy rate or dumping margin used by the administering authority reflects the commercial reality of the interested party. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the discretion of the administering authority to use any other countervailable subsidy rate or dumping margin not specified in paragraph (1), subject to the corroboration requirements of subsection (c). .
Connectionstraces to 1
Traces to 1 document
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 2
Consequences of failure to cooperate with a request for information in an investigation
Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources