International Trade Commission 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-443-443 and 731-TA-1095- 1097 (Preliminary) under sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from India and Indonesia of certain lined paper school supplies, provided for in subheadings 4810.22.50, 4811.90.90, and 4820.10.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of India and Indonesia, and by reason of imports from China, India, and Indonesia of certain lined paper school supplies that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation pursuant to section 702(c)(1)(B) or seciton 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) and 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by October 24, 2005. The Commission's views are due to the Department of Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by October 31, 2005. For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).

The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on structural steel beams from Korea and the antidumping duty orders on structural steel beams from Japan and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 30) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 in the above- captioned investigation. The Commission has set forth a schedule for submitting written submissions on the issues of remedy, bonding, and the public interest.

The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether termination of the suspended investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on August 10, 2005, extending the target date for completion of the above- captioned investigation to June 14, 2006.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (``ID'') granting a joint motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation on the basis of a license agreement.

The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping investigation No. 731-TA-1090 (Final) under section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of less-then-fair-value imports from Japan of superalloy degassed chromium (``SD chromium''), provided for in subheading 8112.21.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.\1\

The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain welded stainless steel pipe from Korea and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission; \1\ to be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is October 21, 2005. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by November 14, 2005. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (``ALJ's'') initial determination (``ID'') terminating the above-captioned investigation in its entirety based upon withdrawal of the complaint.

Following receipt on August 9, 2005 of a request from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332 (g)), the Commission instituted investigation No. 332-471, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2005 Special Review on Watches. Background: As requested by the USTR, in accordance with sections 503(a)(1)(A), 503(e), and 131(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (1974 Act), and under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Commission will provide advice with respect to the probable economic effect on U.S. industries producing like or directly competitive articles and on consumers of the elimination of U.S. import duties for all beneficiary developing countries under the GSP for the following HTS subheadings: 9102.11.10, 9102.11.25, 9102.11.30, 9102.11.45, 9102.19.20, 9102.19.40, and 9102.91.40. In providing its advice on these articles, the USTR asked that the Commission assume that the benefits of the GSP would not apply to imports that would be excluded from receiving such benefits by virtue of competitive need limits specified in section 503(c)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act. In his letter, the USTR also requested that the Commission provide advice concerning other modifications to the GSP as part of the 2005 review. The Commission will provide that advice in November 2005 in its report on investigation No. 332-470, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2005 Review. In addition, as requested by the USTR, the Commission will provide advice with respect to HTS subheadings 9102.11.10, 9102.11.25, 9102.11.30, 9102.11.45, 9102.19.20, 9102.19.40, and 9102.91.40, as to the probable economic effect on United States industries (defined for watches and watch bands, straps and bracelets as those located in the United States and United States insular possessions) manufacturing or assembling watches, watch bands, straps or bracelets of the elimination of U.S. import duties under the GSP program. In addition to advice on the probable economic effect on these industries as a single geographic unit, the Commission will also provide separate advice on the probable economic effect of such action on the watch manufacturing and assembly industry and the watch band, strap, and bracelet manufacturing and assembly industry and for each geographic area (the United States and the United States insular possessions). As requested, the Commission will also provide, to the extent possible, data and analysis on the following factors for the most recent three year period for the United States industries (as defined above) manufacturing or assembling watches or manufacturing or assembling watch bands, straps or bracelets: annual production, capacity, capacity utilization, domestic shipments, exports, inventories, employment, wages, financial experience (including prices), the potential decline in output, market share, profits, productivity and return on investment, the potential negative effects on cash flow, the ability to raise capital and investment, any rapid increases in import penetration and the likelihood that such penetration will rise to an injurious level, factors affecting domestic prices, and any other factors that the Commission deems relevant. The Commission will also provide data for the most recent three-year period, to the extent possible, on the following factors for current and potential foreign producers: current and potential production capacity and capacity utilization, domestic shipments, and exports to the United States and other markets. As requested by the USTR, the Commission will seek to provide its advice no later than February 17, 2006.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part an enforcement initial determination (EID) of the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) in the above-captioned investigation finding a violation of a limited exclusion order, but declining to recommend any enforcement measures. On review, the Commission has determined to modify the ID by correcting the ALJ's finding that the Commission intended to foreclose the possibility of issuing a general exclusion order as a remedy in the above-captioned proceedings when it denied complainant's petition for modification of the existing limited exclusion order. The Commission has determined not to review the reminder of the EID.

The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on sulfanilic acid from India and the antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on structural steel beams from Korea and the antidumping duty orders on structural steel beams from Japan and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') in the above-captioned investigation terminating the investigation based on the withdrawal of the complaint.

The subject five-year review was initiated in May 2005 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on mechanical transfer presses from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury to a domestic industry. On August 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order effective June 21, 2005 because ``the domestic interested parties did not participate in this sunset review. * * *'' (70 FR 44089). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is terminated.

Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 6, 2005 under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. and Hewlett-Packard Company. A supplement to the complaint was filed on July 26, 2005. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain personal computers, monitors and components thereof by reason of infringement of claims 4, 7-8, 12, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,501,721; claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,691,236; claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 6,438,697; claims 1-8, and 23-33 of U.S. Patent No. 6,894,706; and claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 6,803,865 patent. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders.

Following receipt of the request on July 5, 2005, from the House Committee on Ways and Means, the Commission instituted investigation No. 332-469 Conditions of Competition for Certain Oranges and Lemons in the U.S. Fresh Market, under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)). Background: As requested by the Committee, the Commission will conduct an investigation and provide a report on competitive conditions for certain oranges and lemons in the U.S. fresh market during the period 2000-2004. To the extent possible, the investigation will focus on navel oranges and lemons produced for the fresh market, with information provided on broader segments as appropriate. In its report the Commission will provide, to the extent possible, the following: An overview of the global market for oranges and lemons for the fresh market, including production, consumption, and trade; Profiles of the orange and lemon fresh-market industries in the United States and principal foreign producer countries, such as Australia, Argentina, Chile, China, Mexico, Spain, and South Africa; An analysis of U.S. trade in fresh-market oranges and lemons with major competitor countries, including a description of trade practices and measures; and,

Pursuant to statute (see below), the Commission monitors U.S. imports of fresh or chilled tomatoes and fresh or chilled peppers for the purpose of expediting an investigation under certain U.S. safeguard laws, should an appropriate petition be filed. As part of that monitoring, the Commission compiles data on imports and the domestic industry and has made its data series available to the public on an annual basis. The Commission is in the process of preparing its data series for the period ending June 30, 2005, and is seeking input from interested members of the public. The Commission expects to make its data series available to the public in November in electronic form on the Commission's Web site.

Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on June 30, 2005, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Intermec Technologies Corporation. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on July 12, 2005. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain hand-held mobile computing devices, components thereof and cradles therefor by reason of infringement of claims 62, 66, 67, 71, 126, and 130-132 of U.S. Patent No. 5,410,141, claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,468,947, and claims 17-25 and 27-31 of U.S. Patent No. 6,375,344. The complaint further alleges that there exists an industry in the United States as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order.