PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Nov 16, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
New Shipper Review Amendment Act of 2005 - Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to reviews by the administering authority to establish an individual weighted average dumping margin or an individual countervailing duty rate (as the case may be) for a new exporter or producer that: (1) did not export the merchandise that was the subject of an antidumping duty or countervailing duty order to the United States during the period of investigation; and (2) was not affiliated with any exporter or producer who did.
Suspends for three years the requirement that the administering authority direct the Customs Service to allow, at the option of the importer of such merchandise, the posting, until completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise (bonding privileges).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary of Commerce to report to specified congressional committees on: (1) recommendations on whether the effectiveness of the suspension should be extended beyond such date; and (2) assessments of the effectiveness of any administrative measures that have been implemented to address the difficulties giving rise to the suspension, including problems in assuring the collection of antidumping duties on imports from new shippers, administrative burdens imposed on the Department of Commerce by new shipper reviews, and the use of the bonding privilege by exporters from new shippers to circumvent the effect of antidumping duty orders.
People & committees
Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS] · R–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Ordered held at desk.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S13063)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S13063)
Senate Committee on Finance discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S13063)
Senate Committee on Finance discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S13063)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.695 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.695 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.695 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.695 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.