DOJ Uses Section 303's Repeal to Defend Transnational Subsidy Authority at CIT
If CIT accepts DOJ's omission-and-repeal theory, it would weaken the threshold geographic defense without making every cross-border program countervailable. Counsel should preserve grantor, legal jurisdiction, benefit, and specificity evidence while briefing continues.
DOJ's August 13 response argues that Congress's decision not to carry Section 303's same-country phrase into Section 701, followed by Section 303's repeal, supports Commerce's authority to countervail cross-border subsidies. If CIT accepts that threshold theory, respondents could still contest the number of grantor countries, statutory consortium limits, authority, benefit, and specificity.
DOJ reads Congress's decision not to carry Section 303's same-country phrase into Section 701, followed by Section 303's repeal, as evidence that no categorical geographic bar remains. CIT could accept that history yet narrow or remand on singular-country text, consortium provisions, authority, benefit, or specificity. Counsel facing cross-border programs should map the grantor, legal reach, recipient, and program evidence while briefing continues.
Read the full analysis: DOJ Ties Transnational Subsidy Authority to Section 303's Repeal.
Ontario's electricity export surcharge remains $0/MWh, while CT 1830 and CT 1880 remain in IESO's settlement system. A written ministerial request must set the amount, commencement date, and end date. IESO implementation would then make the charge operative. Registered exporters and contract counterparties should monitor those records rather than treat the zero rate as permanent.