WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States-Customs Bond Directive for Merchandise Subject to Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duties, 77821-77822 [E6-22185]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Notices
of the GPA to Romania and the Republic
of Bulgaria. The United States, which is
also a party to the GPA, has agreed to
waive discriminatory purchasing
requirements for eligible products and
suppliers of the Romania and the
Republic of Bulgaria, beginning on
January 1, 2007.
Section 1–201 of Executive Order
12260 of December 31, 1980 delegated
the functions of the President under
sections 301 and 302 of the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979 (‘‘the Trade
Agreements Act’’) (19 U.S.C. 2511,
2512) to the United States Trade
Representative.
Determination: In conformity with
sections 301 and 302 of the Trade
Agreements Act, and in order to carry
out U.S. obligations under the GPA, I
hereby determine that:
1. The European Communities,
including its new Member States
(Romania and the Republic of Bulgaria),
is an instrumentality that: (A) Is a party
to the GPA; and (B) will provide
appropriate reciprocal competitive
government procurement opportunities
to United States products and services
and suppliers of such products and
services. In accordance with section
301(b)(1) of the Trade Agreements Act,
the European Communities is so
designated for purposes of section
301(a) of the Trade Agreements Act.
2. Accordingly, beginning on January
1, 2007, with respect to eligible
products (namely, those goods and
services covered under the GPA for
procurement by the United States) of the
Romania and the Republic of Bulgaria
and suppliers of such products, the
application of any law, regulation,
procedure, or practice regarding
government procurement that would, if
applied to such products and suppliers,
result in treatment less favorable than
that accorded—
(A) To United States products and
suppliers of such products, or
(B) To eligible products of another
foreign country or instrumentality
which is a party to the GPA and
suppliers of such products, shall be
waived. This waiver shall be applied by
all entities listed in United States
Annexes 1 and 3 of GPA Appendix 1.
3. The Trade Representative may
modify or withdraw the designation in
paragraph 1 and the waiver in paragraph
2.
4. This notice shall not affect the
treatment to be accorded to eligible
products of any country that was a
Member State of the European
Communities before January 1, 2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:43 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
Dated: December 19, 2006.
Susan C. Schwab,
United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. E6–22173 Filed 12–26–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190–W7–P
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
[Docket No. WTO/DS345]
WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding
Regarding United States—Customs
Bond Directive for Merchandise
Subject to Anti-Dumping/
Countervailing Duties
Office of the United States
Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Office of the United
States Trade Representative (‘‘USTR’’) is
providing notice that on November 21,
2006, the Dispute Settlement Body, at
India’s request, established a panel
under the Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade
Organization (‘‘WTO Agreement’’). That
request may be found at https://
www.wto.org contained in a document
designated as WT/DS345/6. USTR
invites written comments from the
public concerning the issues raised in
this dispute.
DATES: Although USTR will accept any
comments received during the course of
the dispute settlement proceedings,
comments should be submitted on or
before February 28, 2006 to be assured
of timely consideration by USTR.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted (i) Electronically, to
FR0624@ustr.eop.gov, Attn: ‘‘India Bond
Dispute (DS345)’’ in the subject line, or
(ii) by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at (202)
395–3640. For documents sent by fax,
USTR requests that the submitter
provide a confirmation copy to the
electronic mail address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elissa Alben, Assistant General Counsel,
Office of the United States Trade
Representative, 600 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395–9622.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
127(b) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’) (19 U.S.C.
3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and
opportunity for comment be provided
after the United States submits or
receives a request for the establishment
of a WTO dispute settlement panel.
Consistent with this obligation, USTR is
providing notice that a dispute
settlement panel has been requested
pursuant to the WTO Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77821
Settlement of Disputes (‘‘DSU’’). The
panel will hold its meetings in Geneva,
Switzerland. Note that some of the
issues described below were also raised
in a request for the establishment of a
panel submitted by Thailand, see 71 FR
59542 (October 10, 2006).
Major Issues Raised by India
On February 1, 2005 the Department
of Commerce published an antidumping
duty order covering certain frozen warm
water shrimp from India (70 FR 5147).
In its request for establishment of a
panel, India alleges that the United
States has imposed on importers a
requirement to maintain a continuous
entry bond in the amount of the antidumping duty margin multiplied by the
value of imports of frozen warmwater
shrimp imported by the importer in the
preceding year. It alleges that Customs
Bond Directive 99–3510–004, as
amended on July 9, 2004 (and any
clarifications and amendments thereof),
as well as the laws and regulations of
the United States pursuant to which the
requirement was adopted (including 19
U.S.C. 1484, 1502, 1505, 1623, and
1673g, and 19 CFR 113.13, 113.40,
113.62, and 142.2) as such constitute
specific action against dumping and
subsidization not in accordance with
Article VI:2 and 3 of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(‘‘GATT 1994’’), as well as Articles 1,
and 18.1 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994 (‘‘AD Agreement’’) and Articles 10
and 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures
(‘‘Subsidies Agreement’’), that they
result in charges in excess of the margin
of dumping or amount of subsidy that
are not in accordance with GATT 1994
Articles VI:2 and VI:3, and that the
simultaneous imposition of the
continuous bond requirement and the
obligation to provide bonds or make
cash deposits for the payment of antidumping or countervailing duty is
unreasonable as security for payment of
antidumping and countervailing duties
and therefore inconsistent with Note Ad
paragraphs 2 and 3 of GATT 1994
Article VI. India further alleges that they
are inconsistent with Articles 7.1, 7.2,
7.4, and 7.5 of the AD Agreement and
Articles 17.1, 17.2, 17.4, and 17.5 of the
Subsidies Agreement to the extent that
they are applied prior to the imposition
of definitive antidumping or
countervailing duties, and that they are
inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,
9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement
and Articles 1, 14, 19.2, 19.3 and 19.4
of the Subsidies Agreement. India
further states that because the amended
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
77822
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
directive was not published in the
Federal Register or the Customs
Bulletin of the United States, it is
inconsistent with GATT 1994 Article
X:1 and X:2, AD Agreement Article 18.5,
and Subsidies Agreement Article 32.5.
India alleges that the amended bond
directive is inconsistent with GATT
1994 Article XI as a restriction other
than a duty, tax or other charge and
GATT 1994 Article XIII to the extent it
is applied in a discriminatory manner,
or, alternatively, is inconsistent with
GATT 1994 Article I and II as a charge
in excess of that imposed or
mandatorily required by legislation on
the date of entry into force of the GATT.
India also states that the application of
the continuous bond requirement to
imports of frozen warmwater shrimp
from India is inconsistent with Articles
I:1, II:1(a) and (b), VI:2 (including Note
1 Ad Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article VI)
XI, and XIII of the GATT, and Articles
1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 9.1, 9.2,
9.3, 9.3.1 and 18.1 of the AD Agreement.
Finally, it states that the application of
the continuous bond requirement only
to importers of subject merchandise
from India and five other countries is
inconsistent with GATT 1994 Article
X:3(a).
Public Comment: Requirements for
Submissions
Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments concerning
the issues raised in this dispute. Persons
may submit their comments either (i)
Electronically, to FR0624@ustr.eop.gov,
Attn: ‘‘India Bond Dispute (DS345)’’ in
the subject line, or (ii) by fax to Sandy
McKinzy at (202) 395–3640. For
documents sent by fax, USTR requests
that the submitter provide a
confirmation copy to the electronic mail
address listed above.
USTR encourages the submission of
documents in Adobe PDF format, as
attachments to an electronic mail.
Interested persons who make
submissions by electronic mail should
not provide separate cover letters;
information that might appear in a cover
letter should be included in the
submission itself. Similarly, to the
extent possible, any attachments to the
submission should be included in the
same file as the submission itself, and
not as separate files.
A person requesting that information
contained in a comment submitted by
that person be treated as confidential
business information must certify that
such information is business
confidential and would not customarily
be released to the public by the
submitter. Confidential business
information must be clearly designated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:43 Dec 26, 2006
Jkt 211001
as such and the submission must be
marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’
at the top and bottom of the cover page
and each succeeding page.
Information or advice contained in a
comment submitted, other than business
confidential information, may be
determined by USTR to be confidential
in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of
the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that
information or advice may qualify as
such, the submitter—
(1) Must clearly so designate the
information or advice;
(2) Must clearly mark the material as
‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’ at the
top and bottom of the cover page and
each succeeding page; and
(3) Is encouraged to provide a nonconfidential summary of the
information or advice.
Pursuant to section 127(e) of the
URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will
maintain a file on this dispute
settlement proceeding, accessible to the
public, in the USTR Reading Room,
which is located at 1724 F Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20508. The public file
will include non-confidential comments
received by USTR from the public with
respect to the dispute; if a dispute
settlement panel is convened or in the
event of an appeal from such a panel,
the U.S. submissions, the submissions,
or non-confidential summaries of
submissions, received from other
participants in the dispute; the report of
the panel, and, if applicable, the report
of the Appellate Body. An appointment
to review the public file (Docket No.
WT/DS–345, India Bond Dispute) may
be made by calling the USTR Reading
Room at (202) 395–6186. The USTR
Reading Room is open to the public
from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.
Daniel E. Brinza,
Assistant United States Trade Representative
for Monitoring and Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6–22185 Filed 12–26–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190–W7–P
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
[Docket No. WTO/DS344]
WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding
Regarding Antidumping Measures on
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip Coils
From Mexico
Office of the United States
Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Office of the United
States Trade Representative (USTR) is
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
providing notice that on October 26,
2006, the Dispute Settlement Body
established, at the request of Mexico, a
panel under the Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade
Organization (WTO Agreement)
concerning certain U.S. antidumping
orders against stainless steel sheet and
strip coils (Department of Commerce
Case No. A–201–822). That request may
be found at https://www.wto.org
contained in a document designated as
WT/SD344/4. USTR invites written
comments from the public concerning
the issues raised in this dispute.
DATES: Although USTR will accept any
comments received during the course of
the dispute settlement proceedings,
comments should be submitted on or
before February 28, 2007 to be assured
of timely consideration by USTR.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted (i) Electronically, to
FR0620@ustr.eop.gov, with ‘‘Mexico
Zeroing II (DS344)’’ in the subject line,
or (ii) by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at (202)
395–3640, with a confirmation copy
sent electronically to the electronic mail
address above, in accordance with the
requirements for submission set out
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth V. Baltzan, Associate General
Counsel, Office of the United States
Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC, (202) 395–3582.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
127(b) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C.
3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and
opportunity for comment be provided
after the United States submits or
receives a request for the establishment
of a WTO dispute settlement panel.
Major Issues Raised by Mexico
On October 12, 2006, Mexico
requested the establishment of a panel
regarding the Department of
Commerce’s use of ‘‘zeroing’’ in
investigations and administrative
reviews. Mexico challenges the
following determinations:
• Final results of the anti-dumping
investigation and antidumping order, entitled
‘‘Final Determination Of Sales At Less Than
Fair Value: Stainless steel sheet and strip in
coils from Mexico,’’ published in 64 Federal
Register (FR) 30790 of 8 June 1999
(investigation) and its amendments and
order, 64 FR 40560 of 27 July 1999;
• Final results of the determination of antidumping duties for the period from January
1999 to June 2000, entitled ‘‘Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Stainless Steel Sheet And Strip In Coils From
Mexico,’’ published in 67 FR 6490 of 12
February 2002 (final results of the
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77821-77822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22185]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
[Docket No. WTO/DS345]
WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States--
Customs Bond Directive for Merchandise Subject to Anti-Dumping/
Countervailing Duties
AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative
(``USTR'') is providing notice that on November 21, 2006, the Dispute
Settlement Body, at India's request, established a panel under the
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (``WTO
Agreement''). That request may be found at https://www.wto.org contained
in a document designated as WT/DS345/6. USTR invites written comments
from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute.
DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be
submitted on or before February 28, 2006 to be assured of timely
consideration by USTR.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (i) Electronically, to
FR0624@ustr.eop.gov, Attn: ``India Bond Dispute (DS345)'' in the
subject line, or (ii) by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. For
documents sent by fax, USTR requests that the submitter provide a
confirmation copy to the electronic mail address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elissa Alben, Assistant General
Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-9622.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (``URAA'') (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice
and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits
or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement
panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that a
dispute settlement panel has been requested pursuant to the WTO
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes (``DSU''). The panel will hold its meetings in Geneva,
Switzerland. Note that some of the issues described below were also
raised in a request for the establishment of a panel submitted by
Thailand, see 71 FR 59542 (October 10, 2006).
Major Issues Raised by India
On February 1, 2005 the Department of Commerce published an
antidumping duty order covering certain frozen warm water shrimp from
India (70 FR 5147). In its request for establishment of a panel, India
alleges that the United States has imposed on importers a requirement
to maintain a continuous entry bond in the amount of the anti-dumping
duty margin multiplied by the value of imports of frozen warmwater
shrimp imported by the importer in the preceding year. It alleges that
Customs Bond Directive 99-3510-004, as amended on July 9, 2004 (and any
clarifications and amendments thereof), as well as the laws and
regulations of the United States pursuant to which the requirement was
adopted (including 19 U.S.C. 1484, 1502, 1505, 1623, and 1673g, and 19
CFR 113.13, 113.40, 113.62, and 142.2) as such constitute specific
action against dumping and subsidization not in accordance with Article
VI:2 and 3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``GATT
1994''), as well as Articles 1, and 18.1 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 (``AD Agreement'') and Articles 10 and 32.1 of the Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (``Subsidies Agreement''),
that they result in charges in excess of the margin of dumping or
amount of subsidy that are not in accordance with GATT 1994 Articles
VI:2 and VI:3, and that the simultaneous imposition of the continuous
bond requirement and the obligation to provide bonds or make cash
deposits for the payment of anti-dumping or countervailing duty is
unreasonable as security for payment of antidumping and countervailing
duties and therefore inconsistent with Note Ad paragraphs 2 and 3 of
GATT 1994 Article VI. India further alleges that they are inconsistent
with Articles 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, and 7.5 of the AD Agreement and Articles
17.1, 17.2, 17.4, and 17.5 of the Subsidies Agreement to the extent
that they are applied prior to the imposition of definitive antidumping
or countervailing duties, and that they are inconsistent with Articles
2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement and Articles 1, 14,
19.2, 19.3 and 19.4 of the Subsidies Agreement. India further states
that because the amended
[[Page 77822]]
directive was not published in the Federal Register or the Customs
Bulletin of the United States, it is inconsistent with GATT 1994
Article X:1 and X:2, AD Agreement Article 18.5, and Subsidies Agreement
Article 32.5. India alleges that the amended bond directive is
inconsistent with GATT 1994 Article XI as a restriction other than a
duty, tax or other charge and GATT 1994 Article XIII to the extent it
is applied in a discriminatory manner, or, alternatively, is
inconsistent with GATT 1994 Article I and II as a charge in excess of
that imposed or mandatorily required by legislation on the date of
entry into force of the GATT. India also states that the application of
the continuous bond requirement to imports of frozen warmwater shrimp
from India is inconsistent with Articles I:1, II:1(a) and (b), VI:2
(including Note 1 Ad Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article VI) XI, and XIII of
the GATT, and Articles 1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 9.1, 9.2,
9.3, 9.3.1 and 18.1 of the AD Agreement. Finally, it states that the
application of the continuous bond requirement only to importers of
subject merchandise from India and five other countries is inconsistent
with GATT 1994 Article X:3(a).
Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit their
comments either (i) Electronically, to FR0624@ustr.eop.gov, Attn:
``India Bond Dispute (DS345)'' in the subject line, or (ii) by fax to
Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. For documents sent by fax, USTR
requests that the submitter provide a confirmation copy to the
electronic mail address listed above.
USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format, as
attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make
submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover
letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be
included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible,
any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file
as the submission itself, and not as separate files.
A person requesting that information contained in a comment
submitted by that person be treated as confidential business
information must certify that such information is business confidential
and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter.
Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such
and the submission must be marked ``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' at the top
and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page.
Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than
business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be
confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information
or advice may qualify as such, the submitter--
(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;
(2) Must clearly mark the material as ``SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE''
at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and
(3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the
information or advice.
Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR
will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible
to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-
confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to
the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event
of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, the submissions,
or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other
participants in the dispute; the report of the panel, and, if
applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review
the public file (Docket No. WT/DS-345, India Bond Dispute) may be made
by calling the USTR Reading Room at (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading
Room is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
Daniel E. Brinza,
Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-22185 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P
