Sponsors (22)
Need the quick take? I'll walk you through this bill.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Makes major changes to U.S. trade remedy law to close gaps that let imports avoid antidumping and countervailing duties. It creates faster deadlines and special procedures for “successive” AD/CV investigations, expands how Commerce can treat distorted prices and cross‑border subsidies (including third‑country inputs and unified exchange‑rate differences), tightens circumvention and evasion rules and gives Customs stronger authorities and rulemaking duties. The bill also sets timing rules and limited retroactivity for some provisions and explicitly applies many changes to goods from Canada and Mexico.
When evaluating the impact of imports on domestic producers in successive investigations, the Commission must apply special rules set out in the new subparagraph (E) of section 771(7).
The Commission may not find there is no material injury or threat of material injury solely because of recent improvements in the domestic industry (such as increased sales, market share, or profitability) if those improvements are related to relief granted under a concurrent or recently completed investigation.
In making findings under sections 705(b)(4)(A) or 735(b)(4)(A) in a successive investigation, the Commission must consider that a concurrent or recently completed investigation contributes to the likelihood that the remedial effect of a future countervailing or antidumping duty order will be seriously undermined.
Defines "concurrent investigation" as an ongoing investigation where the Commission has made an affirmative determination under section 703(a) or 733(a) about imports that are the same or similar to the merchandise that is the subject of a successive investigation.
Defines "recently completed investigation" as a completed investigation where the Commission issued an affirmative determination under section 705(b) or 735(b) for the same or similar merchandise not more than 2 years before the date the successive investigation is initiated.
Who is affected and how:
• Importers and exporters: Face higher compliance costs, new certification and evidence demands, possible cash deposits or suspended entries, and greater risk that shipments will be found subject to AD/CV duties. They must update internal controls, customs filings, and supplier documentation.
• Domestic producers and industry petitioners: Likely gain stronger and faster remedies against unfairly priced or subsidized imports (including cases involving third‑country inputs or currency undervaluation). This can improve relief availability and speed.
• Foreign suppliers and governments: Producers in targeted countries may see increased duties or exclusion if Commerce finds distorted pricing, cross‑border subsidies, or currency undervaluation. Governments’ exchange‑rate regimes and support programs could be subject to scrutiny, raising diplomatic and WTO risks.
• U.S. Department of Commerce (ITC/Commerce) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP): Will incur more investigations, verification visits, and rulemaking responsibilities; agencies will need more resources and faster processing to meet new deadlines.
• Trade lawyers, customs brokers, and compliance firms: Expect increased demand for advisory services, petitions, certifications, and litigation support as companies adapt to broader authorities and new enforcement tools.
• Supply chains and consumers: If duties rise or shipments are delayed, costs can flow through supply chains and raise consumer prices for affected goods; some import lines could shift sourcing.
Risks and tradeoffs:
• Legal risk and WTO challenge: New theories (currency undervaluation as a countervailable subsidy; expanded "particular market situation" uses) could provoke judicial review and international dispute settlement claims.
• Administrative burden: Tighter deadlines and broader investigatory scope increase workloads for Commerce and CBP and compliance costs for business.
• Retrospective application: The retroactive measure covering certain proceedings back to June 29, 2015 could reopen or alter outcomes of previously decided matters, raising fairness and litigation concerns.
Overall effect:
The legislation strengthens U.S. tools to detect and block evasion and to address complex forms of subsidization and price distortion, but it raises compliance costs, enforcement burdens, and potential for legal and trade friction.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Introduced February 24, 2025 by Todd Young · Last progress February 24, 2025
Modifies the application/administration of subsection (f)(4) of section 781 (19 U.S.C. 1677j) by substituting specified timing/reference language in subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C).
Amends subsection (b) to expand the scope of determinations covered by the limitation on protests to include determinations made under 19 U.S.C. 1517 (section 517) that are reviewable under section 517(g).
Makes multiple amendments throughout section 517 including (a) adding an express inclusion of actions taken under section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2253) (added as new paragraph (3)(C)); (b) various insertions and clarifying edits to subsections (b)(4) and (d)(1) and to the section heading and subsection (h); and (c) adds a new subsection (i) that applies subsections (b), (c), and (d) of 19 U.S.C. 1677 (section 777) (provisions relating to information submitted in title VII proceedings) to proceedings under section 517 with specified substitutions and exceptions, and directs the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to prescribe implementing regulations.
Amends definitions in section 402 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 4361) to add as a category an 'action taken under section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2253)' and to insert additional language into paragraphs (5) and (7) of that section as specified.
Amends section 412 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 4372) to (a) redesignate existing subparagraphs and insert a new subparagraph (a)(2)(A) identifying 'a person reasonably suspected of entering covered merchandise ... through evasion' as a relevant category, and (b) modify subsection (b)(1) by redesignating clauses, adding a new clause (i) to subparagraph (B) covering a person from whom information was requested under subsection (a)(2)(A), and adjusting cross-references in subparagraph (C).
Adds a new paragraph (6) to section 702(c) requiring the administering authority, in countervailing duty investigations or reviews where certain preliminary determinations are affirmative and the petition alleges currency undervaluation by a government or public entity within a country's territory, to examine whether such currency undervaluation is providing, directly or indirectly, a countervailable subsidy.
Amends the definition of 'benefit' in clause (5)(E) by inserting a new clause (v) addressing exchanges of an undervalued currency under a unified exchange rate (comparing amounts received versus amounts that would have been received absent undervaluation) and adds flush text directing that determinations of existence and amount of benefit take into account a comparison of exchange rates using a methodology the administering authority determines appropriate and whether government action contributes to undervaluation.
Redesignates existing subparagraphs and inserts a new subparagraph (E) establishing special rules for successive investigations (limits on finding no material injury based solely on recent improvements related to relief from concurrent or recently completed investigations; requirement to consider that concurrent or recently completed investigations may undermine remedial effects when making findings under 705(b)(4)(A) or 735(b)(4)(A)).
Adds a new paragraph (37) to provide definitions for 'concurrent investigation', 'recently completed investigation' (including a 2-year threshold), and 'successive investigation' for purposes of paragraph (7)(E) and sections 702(f), 732(f), and 784.
Adds a new subsection (f) enabling the administering authority to initiate successive antidumping duty investigations when specified conditions involving concurrent or recently completed investigations are met (applies to initiation under subsection (a) and conditions under subsection (b)).
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Introduced in Senate