Trade Cases

Leibowitz: The expanding definition of subsidies
Written by Lewis Leibowitz
April 7, 2024
The Biden Commerce Department just issued a broad rewrite of regulations dealing with a host of antidumping and countervailing duty issues. From my perspective, it looks like Commerce made a wrong turn.
Let’s start with some history
Long ago, Congress passed the first “countervailing duty” law that applied to any “bounty or grant” paid on exports of sugar to the United States. The law was expanded several times into the 20th century. By 1913, the law applied to all exports, not just sugar, and included government payments not only on exports but also on “domestic” subsidies to encourage production.
The law permitted the government to impose “countervailing duties” equal to the subsidies bestowed by the government of the exporting country. All this was before there were any statutes in the US that dealt with “dumping” – the selling products in the US below prices charged in the home market, or below the cost of production. Today, “countervailing duties” still refer to subsidies even though the term could literally apply to any duties in response to any disfavored practices.
In 1979, the original countervailing duty statute was repealed, replaced by the statute we basically have today. While the new statute did not expressly limit countervailing duties to subsidies bestowed by the country of manufacture, it defined a “subsidy” the same as a “bounty or grant” under the old law.
Fast forward to the 21st century
The pressure to expand the reach of trade remedy laws is constant. Last year, the Commerce Department proposed to eliminate its regulation limiting countervailing duties to subsidies granted by the government of the country where the goods were produced. Last week, Commerce published a final rule to do that.
The department said that the old rule was based on the statute repealed in 1979. The world, it went on, had changed since then, and some governments subsidize production not only in their own country but also in third countries. The “Belt and Road Initiative,” in which China made loans to developing countries to build infrastructure, was held out as an example of this.
Potential flashpoints
The details of how this new authority operates have not yet been revealed. But there are numerous problems.
- First, the expanded definition will likely be challenged in the courts. The statute does not clearly allow the Commerce Department to impose countervailing duties on products made in Country A that benefit from subsidies bestowed by Country B. Any legal challenge will be made once this new power Commerce has given itself is actually used. When it comes up, the 40-year judicial deference to administrative agencies (the Chevron doctrine) may be a thing of the past. Courts will determine whether the repeal of the old law actually removed the limitation of subsidy payments to the country of production. Congress may need to authorize that change explicitly.
- Second, countervailing duty cases may become even more complex than they are now. Imagine a hypothetical case on Pakistani textiles coming to the US: the domestic petitioners could argue that “Belt and Road” loans from China benefited production of textiles in Pakistan. If, as seems certain, China did not cooperate with Commerce’s investigation, the department could (and no doubt would) impose “adverse facts available” to cause subsidy margins on the Pakistani exports to skyrocket, driving those goods from the US market. US-Pakistani trade in textiles would stop. (Reminder, this is a hypothetical example.)
- Third, there would be challenges in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and perhaps in other international forums on this “third-country” issue. While the WTO dispute settlement system remains paralyzed, that may not always be the case. And, in the absence of dispute settlement, other countries could retaliate unilaterally against US exports.
The takeaway
This is, to be sure, one of many potential disputes that could erupt between the US and its trading partners. But in a world where trade has already been weaponized and where the threat of war is increasing, we and our trading partners need fewer, not more, reasons to be at each other’s throats.

Lewis Leibowitz
Read more from Lewis LeibowitzLatest in Trade Cases

Price on Trade: IEEPA tariffs head to the Supreme Court, DOJ ramps up trade enforcement
International trade law and policy remain a hot topic in Washington and beyond this week. We are paying special attention to the ongoing litigation of the president’s tariff policies and the administration’s efforts to heighten trade enforcement.

Mexico considers stiff tariffs for steel, autos, and other imports
Mexico is considering imposing steep tariffs on imports of steel, automobiles, and over 1,400 other products. Its target? Countries with which it does not have free trade agreements, mainly China, India, Thailand, and other South Asian nations.

Leibowitz: With ‘reciprocal’ tariffs struck down again in court, what happens next?
President Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Policy Act (IEEPA) were struck down again, this time on Aug. 29 by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The legal and policy mess continues, with the next stop being the US Supreme Court.

Market unfazed by US circuit court’s IEEPA decision
Repealing any reciprocal tariffs placed by President Donald Trump on US imports of direct reduced iron (DRI), iron ore, hot-briquetted iron (HBI), and pig iron would have only a nominal impact on the US steel market, market participants said.

ITC votes to keep HR duties after sunset review
The US government determined this week that hot-rolled steel imports from a handful of countries continue to threaten the domestic steel industry.