United States — Trade Remedies

United States antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) law is administered jointly by two agencies under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The U.S. Department of Commerce (the "administering authority" under the statute) determines whether dumping or subsidization exists and calculates the margin of dumping or the amount of the subsidy. The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) determines whether a U.S. industry is materially injured, threatened with material injury, or materially retarded in its establishment by reason of the dumped or subsidized imports.

Antidumping duties are imposed when two conditions are met under 19 U.S.C. § 1673:

1. Commerce determines that foreign merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than its fair value (i.e., the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price), and
2. The Commission determines that a U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of those imports.

When both findings are affirmative, Commerce issues an antidumping duty order directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess duties equal to the amount by which normal value exceeds the U.S. price.

Countervailing duties are imposed under a parallel framework at 19 U.S.C. § 1671(a) when:

1. Commerce determines that a foreign government or public entity is providing, directly or indirectly, a countervailable subsidy with respect to the manufacture, production, or export of merchandise imported (or likely to be sold for importation) into the United States, and
2. For imports from a WTO Subsidies Agreement country, the Commission determines that a U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of those subsidized imports.

The duty equals the amount of the net countervailable subsidy. Under § 1671(c), for imports from countries not party to the Subsidies Agreement, no Commission injury determination is required and certain procedural safeguards (suspension agreements, critical-circumstances findings) do not apply; Commerce may impose countervailing duties based solely on the subsidy determination.

Procedural division of labor. Investigations are initiated by petition filed simultaneously with Commerce and the ITC by an interested party (domestic producer, union, or trade association representing the industry), or less commonly by Commerce on its own motion. The ITC conducts a preliminary injury determination. Commerce then makes preliminary and final determinations on dumping or subsidization. The ITC's final injury determination follows Commerce's affirmative final determination. Only if both agencies reach affirmative final determinations does an AD or CVD order issue and duties are collected.

Material injury standard. The Commission evaluates the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices in the U.S. market for the domestic like product, and their impact on the domestic industry, considering all relevant economic factors. "Material injury" means harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant. The causation requirement—"by reason of"—demands that the dumped or subsidized imports be a cause of material injury, though not necessarily the sole or principal cause.

Five-year sunset reviews. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c), Commerce must revoke an AD or CVD order after five years unless both agencies determine that revocation would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping/subsidies (Commerce) and material injury (ITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time. If either agency makes a negative determination, the order is revoked.

Judicial review. Final determinations by Commerce and the USITC in AD/CVD investigations may be appealed to the U.S. Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). For goods from Canada or Mexico, parties may instead elect binational-panel review under USMCA Article 10.12.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1673) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1671) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1675 Source: USITC, Understanding Antidumping & Countervailing Duty Investigations

The dumping margin is the amount by which the normal value of subject merchandise exceeds its export price or constructed export price when sold for export to the United States. This margin, expressed as a percentage, becomes the antidumping duty rate that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assesses on entries once an AD order is in effect. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35), the "weighted average dumping margin" is the percentage determined by dividing the aggregate dumping margins for a specific exporter or producer by the aggregate export prices (and constructed export prices) of all subject merchandise for that exporter or producer.

Three statutory comparison methods. Commerce compares normal value to export price / constructed export price using one of three methods authorized by 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d) and detailed in 19 C.F.R. § 351.414:

1. Average-to-average — weighted average of normal values compared to weighted average of export prices (and constructed export prices) for comparable merchandise. This is the default method in investigations and reviews unless Commerce determines another method is appropriate in a particular case. 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(c)(1).

1. Transaction-to-transaction — normal value of individual transactions compared to export price (or constructed export price) of individual transactions for comparable merchandise. Commerce uses this method only in unusual situations, such as when there are very few sales of subject merchandise and the merchandise sold in each market is identical, very similar, or custom-made. 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(c)(2).

1. Average-to-transaction — weighted average of normal values compared to export prices (or constructed export prices) of individual transactions for comparable merchandise. This method may be used when Commerce finds a pattern of export prices (or constructed export prices) that differ significantly among purchasers, regions, or time periods, and the differences cannot reasonably be taken into account using the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction method. 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B); 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(b)(3).

Averaging groups and the average-to-average method. When applying the default average-to-average method in an investigation, Commerce constructs "averaging groups" consisting of subject merchandise that is identical or virtually identical in all physical characteristics and that is sold to the United States at the same level of trade. Commerce also considers, where appropriate, the region of the United States in which the merchandise is sold and such other factors as the agency deems relevant. 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(d)(2). For each averaging group, Commerce calculates a weighted average of the export prices and constructed export prices of the sales included in the group, and compares that weighted average to the weighted average of the normal values of such sales. 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(d)(1).

Under § 351.414(d)(3), when applying the average-to-average method in an investigation, Commerce normally calculates weighted averages for the entire period of investigation (POI). However, when normal values, export prices, or constructed export prices differ significantly over the course of the POI, Commerce may calculate weighted averages for such shorter period as the agency deems appropriate. In administrative reviews, Commerce normally calculates weighted averages on a monthly basis and compares the weighted-average monthly export price or constructed export price to the weighted-average normal value for the contemporaneous month.

Individual margins versus sampling. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1), Commerce must determine the individual weighted average dumping margin for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. However, if it is not practicable to make individual determinations because of the large number of exporters or producers involved in the investigation or review, Commerce may determine the weighted average dumping margins for a reasonable number of exporters or producers by limiting its examination to (A) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection, or (B) exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be reasonably examined. § 1677f-1(c)(2).

When Commerce employs sampling or limits the number of respondents examined, it calculates an "all-others" rate for exporters and producers not individually examined. That rate is typically a weighted average of the individually calculated rates, excluding any zero and de minimis margins and any rates determined entirely on the basis of facts available.

Margin for individual transactions. For any individual comparison (whether transaction-to-transaction or within an averaging group), Commerce computes the margin by subtracting the export price or constructed export price from the normal value. When the result is positive, dumping exists for that comparison; when the result is zero or negative, no dumping exists for that sale. The aggregate of the positive margins across all comparisons, divided by the aggregate export prices, yields the weighted average dumping margin for the exporter or producer.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)–(d) Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.414

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 2411–2420 and collectively referred to as "Section 301" — provides the principal statutory authority under which the United States Trade Representative (USTR) may investigate and impose trade sanctions (including additional tariffs, quota restrictions, or withdrawal of trade-agreement concessions) on foreign countries that violate U.S. rights under trade agreements or engage in acts, policies, or practices that are "unjustifiable," "unreasonable," or "discriminatory" and that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Unlike antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, which focus on pricing behavior by exporters or producers, Section 301 addresses foreign government conduct — e.g., forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, discriminatory licensing, market-access barriers, subsidies, digital-services taxes, and industrial overcapacity — and authorizes the United States to act unilaterally if negotiations fail.

The statute defines "commerce" broadly to include goods, services, and investment, so Section 301 investigations may target not only merchandise trade barriers but also services restrictions, discriminatory regulation of U.S. technology companies, and investment-screening regimes. 19 U.S.C. § 2411(d)(1).

Three statutory triggers for mandatory or discretionary action. Under 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a), USTR must determine whether:

1. Mandatory action is required because (A) the rights of the United States under a trade agreement are being denied, or (B) an act, policy, or practice of a foreign government is "unjustifiable" (violates or is inconsistent with U.S. international legal rights, or would violate such rights if the United States took comparable action) and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce;

1. Discretionary action is authorized because an act, policy, or practice of a foreign government is "unreasonable" or "discriminatory" and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. "Unreasonable" is defined to include acts that, while not necessarily violating international law, are unfair and inequitable — examples listed in § 2411(d)(3)(B) include denials of fair and equitable market opportunities, worker rights violations, denial of intellectual property protection, export targeting, and tolerance of systematic anti-competitive activities by private firms.

Action is mandatory under subsection (a)(1) if USTR makes an affirmative determination under trigger 1; action is discretionary under subsection (b)(1) if USTR makes an affirmative determination under trigger 2.

Initiation of investigations. An investigation may be initiated in two ways under 19 U.S.C. § 2412:

• Petition by an interested party (domestic producer, union, trade association, or services provider). USTR must determine within 45 days whether to initiate an investigation; the statute does not specify criteria for this decision, so USTR has broad discretion.

• Self-initiation by USTR at the direction of the President or on its own motion. Self-initiation has been the mechanism for most high-profile investigations since 2017, including the 2017–2018 China technology-transfer investigation (which resulted in tariffs on approximately $370 billion of U.S. imports from China), the 2020 EU aircraft subsidies investigation, and the March 2026 investigations into industrial excess capacity (16 trading partners) and forced labor (59 trading partners).

Procedural requirements. Upon initiation, USTR must request consultations with the foreign government. For cases involving a trade agreement, USTR is required to request formal dispute-settlement proceedings under the agreement (e.g., WTO dispute settlement, USMCA state-to-state dispute panels). 19 U.S.C. § 2413(a). The statute provides for public notice, a public hearing, and opportunity for written comment. 19 U.S.C. § 2412(b)(2). Investigations are conducted by a Section 301 Committee established under 15 C.F.R. § 2002.3, a subordinate staff-level body of the Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Available remedies. If USTR determines action is required or appropriate, § 2411(c)(1) authorizes the Trade Representative to:

• Impose duties or other import restrictions on goods or services of the foreign country;
• Withdraw or suspend trade-agreement concessions (e.g., tariff bindings, quota commitments);
• Enter into a binding agreement with the foreign government to eliminate the conduct in question or compensate the United States with satisfactory trade benefits.

Actions may be taken on a non-discriminatory (MFN) basis or targeted solely against the products and services of the offending country. The statute specifies that actions may be taken "within the power of the President with respect to trade in any goods or services, or with respect to any other area of pertinent relations with the foreign country." 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)(1)(B)(ii), (b)(2).

Four-year automatic termination and review. Section 301 actions terminate automatically after four years unless USTR receives a request for continuation and conducts a review of the action. 19 U.S.C. § 2417(c)(2); see also 19 C.F.R. § 2006.3. This "sunset review" examines whether the foreign act, policy, or practice continues and whether termination of the action would harm U.S. commerce. In May 2024, USTR completed the four-year review of the China technology-transfer tariffs imposed in 2018–2019 and determined to maintain the tariffs and to increase rates on certain strategic products — electric vehicles (to 100%), lithium-ion EV batteries (to 25%, rising to 35% by 2026), semiconductors (to 50% by 2025), solar cells and modules (to 50%), and steel and aluminum products (to 25%) — with the increased rates taking effect on September 27, 2024, and January 1, 2025, or 2026, depending on the product. 89 Fed. Reg. 76,472 (Sept. 13, 2024).

Product exclusions. USTR may establish a process for importers to request exclusion of specific products from Section 301 additional duties. For the China technology-transfer tariffs, USTR maintained a general exclusion process through 2020 for Lists 1–4A, granted over 2,200 initial exclusions and extended 549, then allowed most to expire. In 2024, USTR established a new, narrower exclusion process limited to machinery used in domestic manufacturing classified in HTS Chapters 84 and 85; granted exclusions are effective only through May 31, 2025. 89 Fed. Reg. 76,472, at 76,478–76,479.

Relationship to WTO dispute settlement. Although the WTO Dispute Settlement Body ruled in 1999 that taking Section 301 actions against WTO member countries without first securing WTO authorization would violate U.S. obligations under the Dispute Settlement Understanding, the United States continues to assert the legal authority to impose Section 301 tariffs unilaterally. From 1995 to 2017, the United States used Section 301 primarily to build WTO cases and pursue WTO dispute settlement. Since 2017, the executive branch has increasingly used Section 301 to impose tariffs outside the WTO dispute-settlement process, particularly against China.

Current Section 301 tariffs in force (as of June 2026). The principal active Section 301 tariff measures are:

• China — Lists 1, 2, 3, and 4A (technology-transfer investigation): additional duties of 7.5% to 100% (depending on product and list) on approximately $370 billion of annual imports. Lists are organized by HTS subheading and published in Federal Register notices and on USTR's website. As of March 2026, tariffs remain in force following the May 2024 four-year review. Importers must determine whether their HTS classification appears on any list and add the applicable Section 301 duty to the normal-trade-relations (MFN) rate and any other applicable duties (Section 232, Section 201, or China-specific measures such as reciprocal or fentanyl tariffs).

Active investigations. As of March 2026, USTR has four ongoing investigations: (1) Brazil's acts, policies, and practices related to digital trade, anti-corruption enforcement, intellectual property, ethanol, and deforestation (initiated 2025); (2) China's implementation of the January 15, 2020, Phase One Economic and Trade Agreement (initiated October 2025); (3) industrial excess capacity in 14 countries plus the European Union (initiated March 11, 2026); and (4) forced labor practices in 59 countries plus the European Union (initiated March 2026). Congressional Research Service, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, IF11346 (updated Mar. 13, 2026).

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2411) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2412) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2413) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2417) Source: 15 C.F.R. § 2002.3 Source: 89 Fed. Reg. 76,472 (Sept. 13, 2024) — USTR Section 301 Four-Year Review Final Determination Source: Congressional Research Service, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, IF11346 (Mar. 13, 2026)

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1862 — authorizes the President to impose tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions on imports that the Secretary of Commerce determines "threaten to impair the national security" of the United States. Unlike antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings (which target pricing or subsidy behavior by exporters and producers) and unlike Section 301 (which targets foreign government acts, policies, or practices that violate trade agreements or burden U.S. commerce), Section 232 focuses on whether the quantity or circumstances of imports of a particular article weaken the domestic industry's capacity to supply national-defense requirements or otherwise harm the economic welfare of the nation in a manner that impairs national security. The statute does not define "national security," and courts have interpreted the statute as conferring broad discretion on the executive branch to interpret that term and to determine the nature and scope of remedial action.

Section 232 was used sparingly from its enactment in 1962 through 2016. The most consequential use has been for steel and aluminum tariffs imposed in March 2018, which remain the principal active measures and have generated extensive administrative practice on product exclusions and derivative coverage.

Initiation of investigations. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b)(1)(A) and 15 C.F.R. § 705.3, any of the following may request a Section 232 investigation:

• The head of any federal department or agency;
• Any "interested party" (a term not defined in the statute or regulation, but understood in practice to include domestic producers, trade associations, and labor organizations); or
• The Secretary of Commerce may self-initiate an investigation.

Upon receipt of a request or on his own motion, the Secretary of Commerce "shall immediately initiate an appropriate investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of the article which is the subject of such request, application, or motion." 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b)(1)(A). The investigation is conducted by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). The Secretary must immediately notify the Secretary of Defense of the investigation. 15 C.F.R. § 705.4(b).

Factors in the national-security determination. The statute directs the Secretary of Commerce and the President to consider, "in the light of the requirements of national security and without excluding other relevant factors":

• Domestic production needed for projected national-defense requirements;
• The capacity of domestic industries to meet such requirements;
• Existing and anticipated availabilities of human resources, products, raw materials, and other supplies and services essential to national defense;
• The requirements of growth of such industries, including investment, exploration, and development necessary to assure such growth; and
• The importation of goods in terms of their quantities, availabilities, character, and use as those factors affect the domestic industry's capacity to meet national-security requirements.

19 U.S.C. § 1862(d). The statute further provides that the Secretary and the President "shall further recognize the close relation of the economic welfare of the Nation to our national security, and shall take into consideration the impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of individual domestic industries; and any substantial unemployment, decrease in revenues of government, loss of skills or investment, or other serious effects resulting from the displacement of any domestic products by excessive imports shall be considered, without excluding other factors, in determining whether such weakening of our internal economy may impair the national security." Id. This language, added in 1988, allows the Secretary and President to consider economic harm to domestic industries as relevant to national security even when the imported article itself is not exclusively a defense item.

Investigation procedure and public participation. BIS is directed to consult with the Secretary of Defense and other appropriate federal officials and to allow for public input "if appropriate and after reasonable notice." 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b)(2)(A); 15 C.F.R. § 705.5. In practice, BIS publishes a Federal Register notice soliciting written comments and typically holds a public hearing. The regulation does not mandate a hearing, leaving BIS discretion to determine whether public comment is "appropriate."

Commerce report to the President. No later than 270 days after initiating the investigation, the Secretary must submit to the President a report on the investigation's findings and the Secretary's recommendations for action or inaction. 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b)(3)(A). If the Secretary finds that the article is being imported "in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security," the Secretary shall so advise the President in the report. The unclassified, non-proprietary portions of the report must be published in the Federal Register. 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b)(3)(B). The Secretary's report typically includes factual findings on import volumes, capacity utilization of the domestic industry, employment trends, and the industry's ability to meet projected defense requirements, together with recommendations for specific remedies (tariff rates, quota levels, or alternative measures such as negotiated agreements).

Presidential determination and action. Within 90 days after receiving the Commerce Secretary's report, the President must determine:

1. Whether the President concurs with the Secretary's finding that imports threaten to impair national security, and
2. If the President concurs, "the nature and duration of the action that, in the judgment of the President, must be taken to adjust the imports of the article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security."

19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1)(A); 15 C.F.R. § 705.7(a). If the President determines to take action, he must implement that action no later than 15 days after making the determination to act. 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1)(B). If the President decides not to take action, he must likewise publish that determination. No later than 30 days after making a determination, the President must submit to Congress a written statement of the reasons for the decision. 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(2). The determination must also be published in the Federal Register.

Forms of action. The statute authorizes the President to "adjust the imports of an article and its derivatives" and specifies that such adjustment may include:

• Negotiating agreements with foreign countries limiting the export of the article to the United States;
• Taking such other actions as the President deems necessary to adjust imports so that they will not threaten to impair national security.

19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(3)(A). In practice, the President may impose ad valorem or specific tariffs, tariff-rate quotas, absolute quantitative quotas, or a combination of measures. The President may differentiate among countries, exempting certain trading partners or imposing higher rates on others. Presidential actions under Section 232 are typically implemented by proclamation and embodied in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States by reference to the President's authority under 19 U.S.C. § 2483 to modify the HTSUS to reflect "the substance of … acts affecting import treatment."

Petroleum-specific congressional-disapproval mechanism. For actions adjusting imports of petroleum or petroleum products, Congress in 1980 enacted a joint-resolution disapproval mechanism under 19 U.S.C. § 1862(f). No such mechanism exists for other products. Under subsection (f), any action taken by the President to adjust petroleum imports ceases to have force and effect if Congress enacts a joint resolution disapproving the action within a specified period. This provision has never been successfully invoked.

Breadth of presidential discretion. Courts reviewing Section 232 actions have held that the statute confers extraordinarily broad discretion on the President. The U.S. Court of International Trade has ruled that the President's determination regarding what action is necessary to eliminate a national-security threat is virtually unreviewable, grounded in the President's constitutional authority over national security and foreign affairs. The President is not bound by the Secretary's recommendations and may impose measures different in scope, magnitude, or duration from those recommended. The President may also modify or terminate Section 232 measures over time in response to changed circumstances or the negotiation of alternative arrangements with trading partners.

Product-exclusion process. The statute does not require or authorize a product-exclusion process, but in administrative practice Commerce has established procedures under which individual importers or downstream users may request that specific products—identified by detailed physical and chemical specifications, HTS classification, and often by producer—be excluded from Section 232 tariffs. Exclusion criteria typically include a showing that the product is not produced in the United States in sufficient quantity or of satisfactory quality. Domestic producers may file objections to exclusion requests, and the requester may submit rebuttals. BIS reviews the exclusion requests and grants or denies them; granted exclusions are published in the Federal Register and are typically time-limited (e.g., one year from the date of publication). For the steel and aluminum tariffs imposed in 2018, Commerce developed an online exclusion-request portal and processed thousands of requests, granting a substantial number of exclusions but also denying many and allowing most granted exclusions to expire after their initial term.

Principal historical use: steel and aluminum tariffs (2018). The most significant application of Section 232 authority occurred in 2018. On March 8, 2018, President Trump issued Proclamation 9705, imposing a 25% ad valorem tariff on imports of steel mill articles, and Proclamation 9704, imposing a 10% ad valorem tariff on imports of unwrought and wrought aluminum. Both proclamations were issued following Commerce Department investigations that found that the respective imports threatened to impair national security due to global excess capacity, declining domestic production, and the risk that continued import surges would undermine the domestic industries' ability to supply steel and aluminum for national-defense applications. The tariffs initially applied globally, with certain country-specific exemptions (e.g., Canada and Mexico) or tariff-rate quotas negotiated subsequently. Over time, the measures have been modified by additional proclamations adjusting country coverage, expanding the scope of covered derivative products, and establishing or terminating exclusions.

Relationship to WTO obligations. In 2022, a WTO panel in United States — Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products (DS544) ruled that the 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs violated U.S. obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and were not justified under the national-security exception in GATT Article XXI. The panel found that the measures were primarily economic safeguards rather than necessary to protect essential security interests. The United States has not accepted the panel ruling, and the tariffs remain in force. U.S. trading partners, including the European Union, Canada, Mexico, China, and others, have imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports in response to Section 232 measures, though some retaliatory measures were suspended following the negotiation of tariff-rate quotas or alternative arrangements.

Unable to confirm as of 2026-06-01 which Section 232 measures are currently in force, which countries are subject to tariffs or quotas, which product exclusions remain valid, or which investigations are pending.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1862) Source: 15 C.F.R. Part 705 Source: Proclamation 9705 (Mar. 8, 2018) — Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States

Normal value is the benchmark against which Commerce compares the export price or constructed export price to determine whether subject merchandise is being sold in the United States at less than fair value (i.e., whether dumping exists). Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(A), normal value is ordinarily "the price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price or constructed export price," at a time reasonably corresponding to the time of the U.S. sale.

Three statutory bases for normal value. When sufficient sales of the foreign like product exist in the exporting country, Commerce calculates normal value based on those home-market sales. When the home market does not constitute a viable market or sales in the exporting country cannot be used, Commerce may determine normal value based on either (1) sales of the foreign like product to a third country, or (2) constructed value. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)–(C); 19 C.F.R. § 351.404(a).

Home-market sales (first preference)

The default method for determining normal value is based on prices of sales of the foreign like product in the exporting country. Under 19 C.F.R. § 351.404(b), Commerce will consider the exporting country as constituting a viable market if sales of the foreign like product in that country are of sufficient quantity. "Sufficient quantity" normally means that the aggregate quantity (or value) of the foreign like product sold by the exporter or producer in the home market is 5 percent or more of the aggregate quantity (or value) of its sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. 19 C.F.R. § 351.404(b)(2).

When the exporting country constitutes a viable market, Commerce calculates normal value using home-market prices, subject to certain statutory exclusions and adjustments. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(1), Commerce must exclude from the calculation of normal value any sale in the exporting country that fails at least one of three conditions:

1. Usual commercial quantities — the sale must involve quantities that are usual in the trade;
2. Ordinary course of trade — the sale must be in the ordinary course of trade (a term that includes whether the sale was made at a price below the cost of production, as addressed separately in § 1677b(b) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.406);
3. Same level of trade — to the extent practicable, the sale must be at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale (if Commerce cannot find home-market sales at the same level of trade, Commerce may use sales at a different level of trade and make a level-of-trade adjustment under 19 C.F.R. § 351.412).

Commerce also disregards sales made to establish a fictitious market. No sale or offer for sale intended to establish a fictitious market may be taken into account in determining normal value. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1). For example, if after issuance of an antidumping duty order the prices at which different forms of the foreign like product are sold in the exporting country move in patterns that appear designed to reduce the dumping margin, Commerce may treat those price movements as evidence of a fictitious market. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2).

Third-country sales (second preference)

When the home market is not viable or Commerce determines that home-market sales cannot be used, Commerce may calculate normal value based on sales of the foreign like product to a third country (any country other than the exporting country and the United States). 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B); 19 C.F.R. § 351.404(a), (e).

Commerce will use third-country sales rather than constructed value if adequate information regarding such sales is available and verifiable. Under current regulations, however, Commerce normally will calculate normal value based on constructed value rather than on third-country sales. 19 C.F.R. § 351.404(f). This regulatory preference reflects Commerce's determination that constructed value—which is based on the actual costs of production, selling expenses, and profit—typically provides a more accurate and comparable benchmark than third-country prices, which may involve products that are similar but not identical to the products sold in the United States. See 81 Fed. Reg. 54,329 (Aug. 15, 2016) (proposed rule explaining rationale for preferring constructed value).

Constructed value (third preference)

When neither home-market nor third-country sales provide an appropriate basis for normal value, Commerce determines normal value by constructing a value under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.405. Constructed value is the sum of:

1. Cost of materials and fabrication (or other processing of any kind) employed in producing the foreign like product;
2. Selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) incurred in connection with the sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for home-market consumption, plus
3. Profit on such sales.

Commerce calculates the cost of materials and fabrication under 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 based on records kept by the exporter or producer in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country, to the extent such records reasonably reflect the costs of producing the merchandise. SG&A and profit are normally calculated based on the exporter's or producer's own home-market experience selling the foreign like product. If such data are not available, Commerce may use (in order of preference) the experience of other exporters or producers in the same country, or any other reasonable method, including data from other countries. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B).

Adjustments for fair comparison

Regardless of the basis for normal value (home market, third country, or constructed value), Commerce makes adjustments to normal value under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(6) to ensure a fair comparison with the export price or constructed export price. Such adjustments may include:

• Differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise (19 C.F.R. § 351.411);
• Differences in quantities sold (19 C.F.R. § 351.409);
• Differences in circumstances of sale, such as credit terms, warranties, technical assistance, commissions, and other selling expenses (19 C.F.R. § 351.410);
• Differences in levels of trade (19 C.F.R. § 351.412);
• Movement expenses (packing, freight, insurance, and handling) from the production facility to the place of delivery in the home market or third country, to achieve parity with movement expenses deducted from the U.S. price (19 C.F.R. § 351.401(e)).

Commerce uses a price net of price adjustments. Under 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(c), Commerce normally will not accept a price adjustment that is made after the time of sale unless the interested party demonstrates entitlement to such adjustment—a safeguard to prevent exporters from eliminating dumping margins through post hoc rebates or discounts.

Non-market-economy countries (alternative methodology)

For merchandise from a non-market-economy (NME) country such as the People's Republic of China or Vietnam, Commerce applies a fundamentally different methodology under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.408. Because prices and costs in NME countries may not reflect market values, Commerce values the factors of production (raw materials, labor, energy, factory overhead, and SG&A) using prices or costs in a market-economy country that is (1) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Commerce then adds an amount for profit based on market-economy experience. This "factors-of-production" or "surrogate-value" methodology results in a constructed normal value that substitutes market-economy input prices for the NME producer's actual reported costs.

Commerce may also disregard NME price or cost values if broadly available export subsidies existed or if the price or cost values were themselves subject to an antidumping order. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1)(C).

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 1677b Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.401 Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.404 Source: 19 C.F.R. § 351.405

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 — codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 2251–2254 and implemented by the U.S. International Trade Commission in 19 C.F.R. Part 206, Subpart B — authorizes temporary import restrictions (tariffs, quotas, or tariff-rate quotas) to protect U.S. industries that are seriously injured by increased imports, even when those imports involve no dumping, subsidization, or other unfair trade practice. Section 201 is often called the "global safeguard" or "escape clause" provision because it permits the United States to "escape" temporarily from WTO tariff commitments under GATT Article XIX when a surge of fairly traded imports causes or threatens serious injury to a domestic industry. Unlike antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings (which target unfair pricing or foreign government subsidies) and unlike Section 301 and Section 232 (which address foreign government conduct or national-security threats), Section 201 focuses solely on whether increased import volumes — regardless of the cause or the conduct of foreign exporters — are injuring the domestic industry producing a like or directly competitive article.

Section 201 investigations are conducted exclusively by the U.S. International Trade Commission. If the Commission makes an affirmative determination, it recommends a remedy to the President. The President makes the final decision whether to impose relief, the type of relief, and its duration. Relief is temporary — the initial period may not exceed four years, and extensions may not bring the total period beyond eight years — and is intended to give the domestic industry time to adjust to import competition through modernization, consolidation, retraining, or other measures.

Initiation of investigations. Under 19 U.S.C. § 2252(a) and 19 C.F.R. § 206.13, a Section 201 investigation may be initiated in any of four ways:

1. Petition by an entity representative of the domestic industry — a trade association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers. The petition must be filed with both the Commission and the U.S. Trade Representative.

1. Request by the President or the U.S. Trade Representative.

1. Resolution of the House Committee on Ways and Means or the Senate Committee on Finance.

1. Commission's own motion.

The Commission must institute the investigation promptly upon receipt of a properly filed petition, request, or resolution, or upon adoption of its own motion. 19 C.F.R. § 206.15. The Commission publishes notice of the investigation in the Federal Register and holds public hearings on injury and, if the injury determination is affirmative, a second hearing on remedy.

Two-stage injury determination. The Commission must determine whether an article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article. 19 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1)(A).

Each element of this test is defined by statute and is more demanding than the corresponding standard in antidumping and countervailing duty law:

• Increased quantities. The statute does not quantify what constitutes an "increase," but the Commission examines absolute and relative (market-share) import volumes over a recent period (typically three to five years) and whether the trend is upward, particularly in the most recent data. Seasonal or cyclical fluctuations are considered. The increase may be either actual or imminent (in the case of a threat determination).

• Serious injury. Defined in 19 U.S.C. § 2252(c)(6)(A) as "a significant overall impairment in the position of a domestic industry." This is a higher threshold than "material injury" in AD/CVD cases. The Commission evaluates the volume and market share of imports, the effect of imports on prices for the domestic like or directly competitive product, and the impact of imports on the domestic industry. Relevant economic factors include output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investment, capacity utilization, employment, wages, ability to raise capital, and the actual or potential negative effects of the imported article on existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry. 19 U.S.C. § 2252(c)(1)(A). The Commission must find "significant overall impairment" across this constellation of factors.

• Threat of serious injury. Defined in 19 U.S.C. § 2252(c)(6)(B) as serious injury that is clearly imminent. The standard is stricter than in AD/CVD law; a finding of threat requires a determination that serious injury is clearly imminent, not merely that a threat exists.

• Substantial cause. Defined in 19 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1)(B) as "a cause which is important and not less than any other cause." This causation standard is significantly more stringent than the "by reason of" standard in AD/CVD law. Increased imports need not be the only cause or even the principal cause, but they must be at least equal to any other single cause of serious injury. If the Commission determines that declining demand, technological change, or any other factor is a more important cause of injury than increased imports, it must make a negative determination. The Commission must distinguish the effects of increased imports from the effects of other factors (such as the business cycle, competition from other sources, changes in consumer preferences, and the industry's own business decisions) and may make an affirmative determination only if increased imports, considered separately, are a substantial cause of serious injury.

Like or directly competitive article. The Commission defines the "domestic like product" as the domestically produced article that is like (identical or similar in characteristics and uses) or directly competitive with the imported article. The definition may be broader than the "like product" definition in AD/CVD investigations because it includes articles that are "directly competitive," even if not physically identical or similar, so long as they compete in the same market.

Timeline for USITC determination. The Commission must make its injury determination within 120 days after the petition is filed (or the request, resolution, or motion is received or adopted). 19 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2)(A); 19 C.F.R. § 206.18(a). If before the 100th day the Commission determines that the case is "extraordinarily complicated," it may extend the deadline by up to 30 additional days. 19 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2)(A)(ii). Upon making an affirmative injury determination, the Commission must recommend to the President the action that would address the serious injury (or threat) and facilitate the domestic industry's efforts to make a positive adjustment to import competition, and must submit its report within 180 days of the petition (or up to 210 days if the investigation was designated extraordinarily complicated). 19 U.S.C. § 2252(e)(1).

USITC remedy recommendations. If the Commission makes an affirmative injury determination, it must recommend to the President the import relief that would prevent or remedy the serious injury and facilitate the industry's positive adjustment to import competition. 19 U.S.C. § 2252(e)(1). Remedies the Commission may recommend include:

• An increase in tariff rates on the imported article;
• Imposition of a tariff-rate quota (a two-tier tariff under which imports above a specified quantity are subject to a higher duty);
• Imposition of a quantitative restriction (quota);
• One or more appropriate adjustment measures, including trade adjustment assistance for workers and firms; or
• Any combination of the above actions.

The Commission may also recommend that the President initiate international negotiations to address the underlying cause of the increase in imports, or implement any other action authorized under law. 19 U.S.C. § 2252(e)(2). Individual Commissioners may (and often do) recommend different forms of relief, different duty or quota levels, and different durations.

Presidential determination. Within 60 days after receiving the Commission's report (or by a date specified in the report if earlier than 120 days after the report), the President must determine what action, if any, to take. 19 U.S.C. § 2253(a)(1)(A). The President is not bound by the Commission's remedy recommendations and has broad discretion to:

• Impose the action recommended by the Commission;
• Impose a different form or level of relief;
• Impose no relief at all.

Under 19 U.S.C. § 2253(a)(1)(A), the President shall take all appropriate and feasible action within his power that he determines will facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition and will provide greater economic and social benefits than costs. However, the statute provides that the President may decide not to take action if he determines that taking action would not be in the national economic interest of the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 2253(a)(2)(A). In making this determination, the President must take into account:

• The Commission's report and recommendations;
• The extent to which workers and firms in the industry are benefiting from adjustment assistance and other manpower programs;
• The efforts being made (or to be implemented) by the industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition;
• The probable effectiveness of import relief as a means to promote adjustment;
• The short- and long-term economic and social costs of the proposed action, measured by the reduction in the GNP, efficiency of the economy, competitiveness of U.S. goods, employment in other industries, and consumer prices;
• Other factors related to the national economic interest.

19 U.S.C. § 2253(a)(2)(B)–(D). This multi-factor balancing test gives the President wide latitude. In practice, Presidents have frequently declined to impose relief, imposed relief at lower levels or for shorter periods than the Commission recommended, or limited relief to imports from certain countries while exempting free-trade-agreement partners or developing countries.

Duration and phasedown of relief. The initial period of Section 201 relief may not exceed four years. 19 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(1)(A). The action must be progressively liberalized (phased down) at regular intervals during the period in which it is in effect. § 2253(e)(2). If the initial period is three years or less, the President may extend the action for up to three additional one-year periods, provided that the Commission conducts an investigation and determines that the extension is necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and that the industry is making a positive adjustment to import competition. § 2253(e)(1)(B). The total period of relief (initial period plus any extensions) may not exceed eight years. § 2253(e)(1)(C). For actions exceeding one year, relief must be phased down in equal annual increments (or, if the President determines it is appropriate, according to another schedule that results in progressive liberalization). § 2253(e)(2)(B).

Effect on WTO bindings and compensation. When the United States imposes Section 201 relief, the action typically raises the applied tariff above the U.S. bound rate under the WTO and constitutes a suspension of U.S. concessions under GATT Article XIX and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. Under those agreements, affected WTO members may seek compensation (equivalent trade concessions from the United States on other products) or, if the United States declines to offer compensation or agreement cannot be reached, the affected member may retaliate by suspending substantially equivalent concessions against U.S. exports. WTO rules allow such retaliation to begin three years after the safeguard action is imposed, except that affected members may suspend concessions immediately if the Commission's determination of increased imports and causation was based on an absolute increase in imports and the safeguard action "conforms to the provisions" of the Agreement on Safeguards. GATT Art. XIX:3(a); Agreement on Safeguards Art. 8. In practice, major exporters (the EU, China, South Korea, and others) have imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products in response to U.S. safeguard measures, even when the United States has argued that its actions comply with WTO rules.

WTO dispute-settlement challenges. Section 201 actions are subject to WTO dispute settlement. WTO panels have ruled against the United States in several high-profile cases, finding that the USITC's application of the statutory injury and causation standards did not comply with the Agreement on Safeguards. For example, in United States — Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products (DS248, DS249, DS251–254, DS258, DS259), the WTO Appellate Body ruled in 2003 that the 2002 steel safeguard measures imposed by President Bush violated WTO rules, in part because the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that increased imports were a substantial cause of serious injury when other factors (such as the business cycle and industry restructuring) were also causing injury. The United States removed the steel safeguard measures in December 2003, 16 months ahead of the scheduled termination date, to avoid authorized retaliation by the EU and other trading partners.

Recent Section 201 investigations. The most prominent recent Section 201 actions are:

• Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules (solar panels), Inv. No. TA-201-75 (2017). The Commission found serious injury in October 2017. On January 23, 2018, President Trump imposed a tariff-rate quota on solar cells and an ad valorem duty increase on modules, beginning at 30% and stepping down annually to 15% in year four, with a 2.5-gigawatt exemption for imported cells. The remedy took effect February 7, 2018, for an initial four-year period. The action was extended in modified form (tariff reduced to 18% for year five, then 15% for year six, terminating February 6, 2026 after two one-year extensions).

• Large residential washers, Inv. No. TA-201-76 (2017). The Commission found serious injury in November 2017. On January 23, 2018, President Trump imposed tariff-rate quotas on washers and washer parts, effective February 7, 2018, for a three-year-and-one-day period (through February 7, 2021). The initial tariff was 20% on imports above 1.2 million units in year one and 50% above 1.2 million units, stepping down to 16% / 40% in year three. An extension petition was filed, but the action terminated on schedule.

• Fine denier polyester staple fiber, Inv. No. TA-201-78 (2024). The Commission found serious injury in July 2024. All four Commissioners recommended a four-year remedy period. As of June 2026, the President has not yet announced a decision on whether to impose relief or the form of relief.

• Quartz surface products, Inv. No. TA-201-79 (initiated December 2025). The Commission designated this investigation "extraordinarily complicated" and is scheduled to make its serious injury determination by April 1, 2026.

Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2251) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2252) Source: 19 U.S.C. § 2253) Source: 19 C.F.R. Part 206, Subpart B Source: USITC, Understanding Section 201 Safeguard Investigations Source: USITC, Fact Sheets: USITC Global Safeguard Investigations