Prospective or Retrospective—What is the Best Way to Assess Antidumping and Countervailing Duties?




While many countries utilize Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) regimes, the United States is the only country with a retrospective assessment system whereby final AD/CV duties are not assessed until long after a product is imported. One result is hundreds of millions of dollars in uncollected AD/CVD duties annually. Critics of the current system argue that the risk and uncertainty of the current system undermines U.S. competitiveness by preventing companies from being able to make informed purchasing decisions and avoid unfair trade. Meanwhile, supporters suggest it is the most accurate system to assess actual AD and CVDs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recommended changing to a prospective system to collect AD and CV duties, and the Commerce Department provided a report to Congress on the relative advantages and disadvantages of retrospective and prospective AD and CVD collection systems. What are the benefits and challenges of prospective versusretrospective assessment systems? What are the likely political ramifications of a change? What can we learn from our neighbor and largest trading partner – Canada- and their prospective normal-value system? Speaker PANEL: Jim HECHT, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Lawrence HERMAN, Counsel, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, Toronto; Marguerite TROSSEVIN, Partner, Jochum, Shore and Trossevin LLP; Michael WALSH, Director, AD CVD / Revenue Policy and Programs, U.S. CBP. With your MODERATOR: Ed GRESSER, Director, ProgressiveEconomy Project