International Trade Commission November 2009 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review-in-part a final initial determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the above-captioned investigation, and has determined to remand a portion of the investigation to the ALJ.

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 stainless steel wire rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan 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).

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 8) granting complainant's motion to amend the complaint and notice of 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 antidumping duty orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Malaysia, 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).

Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on October 1, 2009, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Japan and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. A supplement to the complaint was filed on October 28, 2009. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ceramic capacitors and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,266,229; 6,014,309; 6,377,439; and 6,243,254. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

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 carbazole violet pigment 23 from India and the antidumping duty orders on carbazole violet pigment 23 from China 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 December 2, 2009. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by January 15, 2010. 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), as most recently amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 2009).