International Trade Commission 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Notice is hereby given that a complaint filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 9, 2005 under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Power Integrations, Inc. of San Jose, California. A supplement to the complaint was filed on May 24, 2005. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violation 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 power supply controllers and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079; claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 24, 28, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,351,398; claims 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,366,481, and claims 1, 4, 9-11 13, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,908. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists 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 limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against a respondent found in default in the above-captioned investigation, and has terminated the investigation.

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'') granting a joint motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement.

The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review 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 order on glycine from China 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 July 21, 2005. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by August 16, 2005. 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 a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 26, 2005, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Ford Global Technologies, LCC of Dearborn, Michigan. An amended complaint was filed on May 18, 2005. The amended complaint 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 automotive grilles by reason of infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. 498,187. The amended complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists 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.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to find a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in the above-captioned investigation. Notice is also given that the Commission has issued a general exclusion order in the above-captioned investigation and has terminated the investigation.

The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on PET film from 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).

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 and antidumping duty orders on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway 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 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 orders on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from India, Indonesia, Italy, and Korea and the antidumping duty orders on cut-to- length carbon-quality steel plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, 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 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 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 antidumping duty orders on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. 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 of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping investigations Nos. 731-TA-1092-1093 (Preliminary) under section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 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 retarded, by reason of imports from China and Korea of diamond circular sawblades and parts thereof, provided for in subheading 8202.39.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''),\1\ 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 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping investigations in 45 days, or in this case by June 17, 2005. The Commission's views are due at Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by June 24, 2005.

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 April 12, 2005, granting complainant's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation.

The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted investigations pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)) (the Act) to review its determinations in investigations Nos. 731-TA-1066-1067 (Final). The purpose of the investigations is to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from India and Thailand is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States. Certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from India and Thailand are provided for in subheadings 0306.13.00 and 1605.20.10 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations, hearing procedures, 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, C, D, and E (19 CFR part 207).

The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review 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 order on non-frozen concentrated apple juice from China 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 June 21, 2005. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by July 15, 2005. 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).

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 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. 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 June 21, 2005. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by July 15, 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).

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 carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe from Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa 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 June 21, 2005. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by July 15, 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 an initial determination (ID) of the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) in the above-captioned investigation terminating the investigation as to six respondents. The investigation was terminated as to two respondents based on settlement agreements and consent orders and as to four respondents based on consent orders alone. The Commission also is requesting briefing on remedy, public interest, and bonding with respect to three respondents previously found in default.