NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS

QUESTIONS POSED BY China REGARDING
THE NOTIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES[1]

The following communication, dated and received on 7 April 2025, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of China.

_______________

China thanks the United States for its notification regarding the 16 December 2024 Regulations Enhancing the Administration of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Trade Remedy Laws and poses the following questions:

Question 1

The newly added 19 CFR Sec. 351.108 (a) stipulates that "(a)ll merchandise from the nonmarket economy exported to the United States and subject to an antidumping proceeding by entities in the nonmarket economy determined by the Secretary on the basis of record information to be part of the government-controlled entity may be assigned the antidumping cash deposit or assessment rate applied to the government-controlled entity." However, the panel in US – ANTI‑DUMPING METHODOLOGIES (CHINA) (DS471) found that the Single Rate Presumption is a norm of general and prospective application inconsistent "as such" with Arts. 6.10 and 9.2, and that the application of the Single Rate Presumption in the 38 challenged determinations was inconsistent "as applied". The United States didn't appeal on such findings. Please elaborate the United States' considerations for formally incorporating the Single Rate Presumption norm which has be found inconsistent with the WTO Rules by an effective DSB report into its Federal Regulations.

Question 2

The newly added 19 CFR Sec. 351.109(f)(2)(ii) stipulates that "(i)f the Secretary determines that weight-averaging calculated dumping margins or countervailable subsidy rates established for individually investigated exporters or producers could result in the inadvertent release of proprietary information among the individually investigated exporters or producers", the Secretary will compare the simple-average and weighted-average dumping margins or countervailable subsidy rates for the individually investigated exporters or producers using public data, and apply the one that is numerically the closest to the weighted average rate calculated using the business proprietary data. Please confirm:

(1) if it's possible that an all-others rate calculated using the above methodology higher than the weighted average rate of the selected (or individually investigated) exporters or producers and,

(2) if yes, how such methodology could be consistent with Art. 9.4 (i) of the Anti‑dumping Agreement.

Question 3

The newly added 19 CFR Sec. 351.109(f)(2)(iii) stipulates that "(i)f the estimated weighted average dumping margins or countervailable subsidy rates established for all individually investigated exporters and producers are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Secretary may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually examined, including averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins or countervailable subsidy rates determined for the individually investigated exporters and producers."

(1)_       Will this methodology violate Art. 9.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, as the zero, de minimis and facts-available-based dumping margins or countervailable subsidy rates, which are determined for the individually investigated exporters and producers, are not "disregarded" as required?

(2)_       How will the U.S. investigating authority average "the estimated weighted average" dumping margins or subsidy rates?

(3)_       Has the U.S. investigating authority envisaged any other "reasonable method" to establish the all others rates?

Question 4

The newly added 19 CFR Sec. 351.109 (d) stipulates that "(t)he Secretary may waive individual examination of an exporter or producer selected to be an examined respondent if both the selected respondent and the petitioner file waiver requests for that selected respondent no later than five days after the Secretary has selected respondents." Please explain the purpose of this paragraph, and elaborate why such an artificial selection of sampled respondents could be consistent with Art. 6.10 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.

Question 5

The revised 19 CFR Sec. 351.301 (c)(3)(i)(B) stipulates that "(a)ll submissions of factual information to measure the adequacy of remuneration under Sec. 351.511(a)(2) in a countervailing duty investigation are due no later than 45 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination." Please clarify that, if a new allegation on subsidy programs related with the adequacy of remuneration after this deadline, will the interested parties be granted any extension for providing related factual information?

Question 6

The revised 19 CFR Sec. 351.525 (b)(6)(v) stipulates that "(i)f there is cross-ownership between a corporation providing electricity, natural gas or other similar utility product and a producer of subject merchandise, the Secretary will attribute subsidies received by that provider to the combined sales of that provider and the sales of products sold by the producer of subject merchandise if at least one of the following two conditions are met: (A) a substantial percentage, normally defined as 25% or more, of the production of the cross-owned utility provider is provided to the producer of subject merchandise, or (B) the producer of subject merchandise purchases a substantial percentage, normally defined as 25% or more, of its electricity, natural gas, or other similar utility product from the cross-owned provider." Please explain the reason why the U.S. chooses thresholds of 25%?

Question 7

The revised 19 CFR Sec. 351.525 (d) stipulates that "(f)or countries experiencing an inflation rate greater than 25% per annum during the relevant period, the Secretary will normally adjust the benefit amount (numerator) and the sales data (denominator) to account for the rate of inflation during the relevant period of investigation or review in calculating the ad valorem subsidy rate." Please explain how will the investigating authority do the adjustment, and why the threshold of 25% per annum is chosen.

Question 8

The revised 19 CFR Sec. 351.526 (d) stipulates that the deadline to rebut the presumption that non-recurring subsidies continue to benefit a recipient in full over an allocation period notwithstanding an intervening change in ownership shall be the same as the respondent's or government's initial questionnaire response. Please clarify, with respect to programs initiated upon new allegations or found in the investigation, if the respondent or government will have any extension for submitting relevant information.

__________