FEDERAL · 19 U.S.C. · Chapter 4

Treatment of difference between deposit of estimated countervailing duty and final assessed duty under countervailing duty order

19 U.S.C. § 1671f
Title19Customs Duties
SubtitleIV
Chapter4 — TARIFF ACT OF 1930
PartI

This text of 19 U.S.C. § 1671f (Treatment of difference between deposit of estimated countervailing duty and final assessed duty under countervailing duty order) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
19 U.S.C. § 1671f.

Text

(a)Deposit of estimated countervailing duty under section 1671b(d)(1)(B) of this title If the amount of a cash deposit, or the amount of any bond or other security, required as security for an estimated countervailing duty under section 1671b(d)(1)(B) of this title is different from the amount of the countervailing duty determined under a countervailing duty order issued under section 1671e of this title, then the difference for entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption before notice of the affirmative determination of the Commission under section 1671d(b) of this title is published shall be—
(1)disregarded, to the extent that the cash deposit, bond, or other security is lower than the duty under the order, or
(2)refunded or released, to the extent tha

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Canadian Fur Trappers Corp. v. United States
691 F. Supp. 364 (Court of International Trade, 1988)
27 case citations
Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States
557 F. Supp. 596 (Court of International Trade, 1983)
20 case citations
Fabricas El Carmen, SA, De CV v. United States
680 F. Supp. 1577 (Court of International Trade, 1988)
10 case citations
New Zealand Lamb Company, Inc. v. United States
149 F.3d 1366 (Federal Circuit, 1998)
8 case citations
Philipp Bros., Inc. v. United States
640 F. Supp. 261 (Court of International Trade, 1986)
7 case citations
Ambassador Division of Florsheim Shoe Co. v. United States
577 F. Supp. 1016 (Court of International Trade, 1983)
5 case citations
Sunpreme Inc. v. United States
181 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (Court of International Trade, 2016)
3 case citations
Grupo Simec S.A.B. de C.V. v. United States
2023 CIT 22 (Court of International Trade, 2023)
New Zealand Lamb Co. v. United States
21 Ct. Int'l Trade 442 (Court of International Trade, 1997)
PPG Industries, Inc. v. United States
11 Ct. Int'l Trade 5 (Court of International Trade, 1987)

Source Credit

History

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, §707, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, §101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 161; amended Pub. L. 103–465, title II, §264(c)(10), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4914.)

Editorial Notes

Editorial Notes

Amendments
1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–465 substituted "1671b(d)(1)(B)" for "1671b(d)(2)" in heading and text.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 1994 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 103–465 effective, except as otherwise provided, on the date on which the WTO Agreement enters into force with respect to the United States (Jan. 1, 1995), and applicable with respect to investigations, reviews, and inquiries initiated and petitions filed under specified provisions of this chapter after such date, see section 291 of Pub. L. 103–465, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 U.S.C. § 1671f, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/19/1671f.