International Trade Commission 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The subject five-year review was initiated in March 2005 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on electroluminescent flat panel displays from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury to a domestic industry. On June 2, 2005, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order effective April 11, 2005 because ``no interested domestic party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by the applicable deadline * * *'' (70 FR 32289). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is terminated.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') hereby gives notice of proceedings in the remand investigation ordered by the United States Court of International Trade in Grain-Oriented Silicon Electrical Steel from Italy and Japan, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-355 and 731-TA-659-660.

Since February 1991, the U.S. International Trade Commission (``Commission'') has issued an annual report on the status of its practice with respect to violations of its administrative protective orders (``APOs'') in investigations under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 in response to a direction contained in the Conference Report to the Customs and Trade Act of 1990. Over time, the Commission has added to its report discussions of APO breaches in Commission proceedings other than under Title VII and violations of the Commission's rules including the rule on bracketing business proprietary information (``BPI'') (the ``24-hour rule''), 19 CFR 207.3(c). This notice provides a summary of investigations of breaches in proceedings under Title VII, section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, completed during calendar year 2004. There were no completed investigations of 24-hour rule violations during that period, but there were two violations of Commission rule 210.34(d), the requirement that APO signatories inform the Commission in writing immediately upon learning that there has been a court order or discovery request for confidential business information (``CBI'') that has been released to signatories under an APO. The Commission intends that this report educate representatives of parties to Commission proceedings as to some specific types of APO breaches encountered by the Commission and the corresponding types of actions the Commission has taken.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 41) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 in the above- captioned investigation. Notice is also hereby given that the Commission is requesting briefing on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.

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 antidumping duty orders on polyester staple fiber from Korea and Taiwan 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 a final initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') in the above-captioned investigation on May 9, 2005, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337. Notice is also hereby given that the Commission is requesting briefing on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.

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 revocation of the antidumping duty order on internal combustion industrial forklift trucks from Japan 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 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 order on heavy forged hand tools 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 August 22, 2005. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by September 13, 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 stainless steel wire rod from Brazil, France, and India 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 August 22, 2005. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by September 13, 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 a review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether termination of the suspended investigation on uranium from Russia 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 August 22, 2005. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by September 13, 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 welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey and the antidumping duty orders on certain pipe and tube from Argentina, Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey 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 August 22, 2005. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by September 13, 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 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 revocation of the antidumping duty order on raw in-shell pistachios from Iran 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 to review a portion of the final initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on May 10, 2005, regarding whether there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above- captioned investigation.

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 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. 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 a full review 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 antidumping duty order on internal combusion industrial forklift trucks from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the review will be established and announced at a later date. 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 May 19, 2005, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Broadcom Corporation of Irvine, California. Supplements to the complaint were filed on June 7 and 10, 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 baseband processor chips and chipsets, transmitter and receiver (radio) chips, power control chips, and products containing same, including cellular telephone handsets, by reason of infringement of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,374,311, claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 17-24 of U.S. Patent No. 6,714,983, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 5,682,379, claims 8-11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,359,872, and claims 33, 35, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 6,583,675. 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.

Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 17, 2005, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of BenQ Corporation of Taiwan and BenQ America Corporation of Irvine, California. The 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 DVD/CD players and recorders, color television receivers and monitors, and components thereof, by reason of infringement of claims 7-11 and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,270,821 and claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,683,842. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(3) of section 337. The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

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 complainant's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation in the above-captioned investigation to add claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,517,628.