SEC. 752. SPECIAL RULES FOR SECTION 751(b) AND 751(c) REVIEWS.

  (a) Determination of Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury.  
  (1) In general.  In a review conducted under section 751 (b) or (c), the
Commission shall determine whether revocation of an order, or termination of a
suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence
of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission shall
consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject
merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended
investigation is terminated. The Commission shall take into account  
  (A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price effect, and
impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry before the order
was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted,
  (B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the
order or the suspension  agreement,
  (C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is
revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and
  (D) in an antidumping proceeding under section 751(c), the findings of the
administering authority regarding duty absorption under section 751(a)(4).
  (2) Volume.  In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject
merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is
terminated, the Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports
of the subject  merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the
suspended investigation is terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to
production or consumption in the United States. In so doing, the Commission
shall consider all relevant economic factors, including  
  (A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production
capacity in the exporting country,
  (B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in
inventories,
  (C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such merchandise into
countries other than the United States, and
  (D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign
country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently
being used to produce other products.
  (3) Price.  In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject
merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is
terminated, the Commission shall consider whether  
  (A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports of the
subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and
  (B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the United States
at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing
effect on the price of domestic like products.
  (4) Impact on the industry.  In evaluating the likely impact of imports of the
subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended
investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic
factors which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the
United States, including, but not limited to  
  (A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity,
return on investments, and utilization of capacity,
  (B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,
growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and
  (C) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts
of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced
version of the domestic like product.
  The Commission shall evaluate all relevant economic factors described in this
paragraph within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of
competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.
  (5) Basis for determination.  The presence or absence of any factor which the
Commission is required to consider under this subsection shall not necessarily
give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission's determination of whether
material injury is likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable
time if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated. In
making that determination, the Commission shall consider that the effects of
revocation or termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only
over a longer period of time.
  (6) Magnitude of margin of dumping and net countervailable subsidy; nature of
countervailable subsidy.  In making a determination under section 751 (b) or
(c), the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the
magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If a countervailable subsidy is
involved the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of the
countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in
Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.
  (7) Cumulation.  For purposes of this subsection, the Commission may
cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject merchandise
from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 751 (b) or (c)
were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete with
each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The
Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of
the subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are
likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.
  (8) Special rule for regional industries.  In a review under section 751 (b)
or (c) involving a regional industry, the Commission may base its determination
on the regional industry defined in the original investigation under this title,
another region that satisfies the criteria established in section 771(4)(C), or
the United States as a whole. In determining if a regional industry analysis is
appropriate for the determination in the review, the Commission shall consider
whether the criteria established in section 771(4)(C) are likely to be satisfied
if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is  terminated.
  (b) Determination of Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of a
Countervailable Subsidy.  
  (1) In general.  In a review conducted under section 751(c), the administering
authority shall determine whether revocation of a countervailing duty order or
termination of a suspended investigation under section 704 would be likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The
administering authority shall consider  
  (A) the net countervailable subsidy determined in the investigation and
subsequent reviews, and
  (B) whether any change in the program which gave rise to the net
countervailable subsidy described in subparagraph (A) has occurred that is
likely to affect that net countervailable subsidy.
  (2) Consideration of other factors.  If good cause is shown, the administering
authority shall also consider  
  (A) programs determined to provide countervailable subsidies in other
investigations or reviews under this title, but only to the extent that such
programs  
  (i) can potentially be used by the exporters or producers subject to the
review under section 751(c), and
  (ii) did not exist at the time that the countervailing duty order was issued
or the suspension agreement was accepted, and
  (B) programs newly alleged to provide countervailable subsidies but only to
the extent that the administering authority makes an affirmative countervailing
duty determination with respect to such programs and with respect to the
exporters or producers subject to the review.
  (3) Net countervailable subsidy.  The administering authority shall provide to
the Commission the net countervailable subsidy that is likely to prevail if the
order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated. The administering
authority shall normally choose a net countervailable subsidy that was
determined under section 705 or subsection (a) or (b)(1) of section 751.
  (4) Special rule.  
  (A) Treatment of zero and de minimis rates.  A net countervailable subsidy
described in paragraph (1)(A) that is zero or de minimis shall not by itself
require the administering authority to determine that revocation of a
countervailing duty order or termination of a suspended investigation would not
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.
  (B) Application of de minimis standards.  For purposes of this paragraph, the
administering authority shall apply the de minimis standards applicable to
reviews conducted under subsections (a) and (b)(1) of section 751.
  (c) Determination of Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping.  
  (1) In general.  In a review conducted under section 751(c), the administering
authority shall determine whether revocation of an antidumping duty order or
termination of a suspended investigation under section 734 would be likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of sales of the subject merchandise at less
than fair value. The administering authority shall consider  
  (A) the weighted average dumping margins determined in the investigation and
subsequent reviews, and
  (B) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period before and
the period after the issuance of the antidumping duty order or acceptance of the
suspension agreement.
  (2) Consideration of other factors.  If good cause is shown, the administering
authority shall also consider such other price, cost, market, or economic
factors as it deems  relevant.
  (3) Magnitude of the margin of dumping.  The administering authority shall
provide to the Commission the magnitude of the margin of dumping that is likely
to prevail if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.
The administering authority shall normally choose a margin that was determined
under section 735 or under subsection (a) or (b)(1) of section 751.
  (4) Special rule.  
  (A) Treatment of zero or de minimis margins.  A dumping margin described in
paragraph (1)(A) that is zero or de minimis shall not by itself require the
administering authority to determine that revocation of an  antidumping duty
order or termination of a suspended investigation would not be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of sales at less than fair value.
  (B) Application of de minimis standards.  For purposes of this paragraph, the
administering authority shall apply the de minimis standards applicable to
reviews conducted under subsections (a) and (b) of section 751.

  (19 U.S.C. 1675a)