For other trade remedies the rules are less formal. There is no equivalent of a 'suspension agreement' for a Section 201 safeguards case. Since these investigations do not involve allegations of unfair trade, and since they involve all import sources, it is much harder to imagine settling such a case. The remedy phase of a Section 201 investigation, however, involves elements that are in some respects similar to a settlement. It is quite possible for a country to craft arguments in the remedy phase to exclude substantial portions of its trade from the remedy being imposed. It is also common for individual countries to press the interests of their exporters when the President is debating the form and scope of the Section 201 remedy.

Section 337 investigations of intellectual property violations can be settled. If the two companies can reach some agreement with respect to the intellectual property at issue, the petitioner can withdraw the complaint and the proceeding disappears.

The same pattern often occurs in Section 301 market access cases. Merely initiating the case and beginning consultations often can trigger some change by the foreign government or foreign company that satisfies United States concerns. If the petitioner withdraws the complaint, the proceeding can be dismissed or suspended indefinitely.

For all of these settlement options, however, foreign companies need to bear in mind that United States antitrust laws still apply. Thus, competitors cannot discuss or reach agreements about their respective prices or quantities. It is permissible to discuss other topics, such as licensing intellectual property or eliminating practices the United States has challenged as market barriers. Foreign companies often think such commercial proposals are the best way to satisfy their United States competitors. But such proposals to United States competitors are extremely risky from a legal perspective. If the United States and foreign governments force a settlement that involves price or quantity issues such as an official suspension agreement under the anti-dumping law - that government involvement creates substantial (but not complete) insulation from challenge under the antitrust laws. The less government involvement, the greater the risk of such company-to-company arrangements.

Source: Business Guide to Trade Remedies in the United States: Anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguards legislation practices and procedures