The International Trade Administration has issued a final rule that, effective May 10, will amend its regulations regarding the definition of factual information and the submission of factual information in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. This rule: – modifies the definition of factual information to include five categories: (1) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires, [...]
The International Trade Administration has issued a final rule that, effective May 10, will amend its regulations regarding the definition of factual information and the submission of factual information in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. This rule:
- modifies the definition of factual information to include five categories: (1) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires, (2) evidence submitted in support of allegations, (3) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), (4) evidence placed on the record by the ITA, and (5) evidence other than factual information described above;
- establishes specific time limits for the submission of information under each category to help prevent situations in which the ITA has to review large amounts of factual information when it is too late to adequately examine, analyze, conduct follow-up inquiries and, if necessary, verify the information; and
- requires submitters to specify the category of information they are submitting.
The ITA states that if parties find that an administrative record is lacking factual information they should explain what additional information they wish to submit, explain why it was not available for timely submission and request that the ITA accept it. If there is adequate time for rebuttal, comment, analysis and thorough consideration of the new, previously unavailable information and the ITA could potentially verify it, the agency may elect to permit submission. Otherwise, the reliability of such late-submitted information cannot be assured.
This rule will apply to any interested party submitting information to the ITA in AD/CV proceedings, which could include exporters and producers of merchandise subject to AD/CV proceedings and their affiliates, importers of such merchandise, domestic producers of like products, and foreign governments.
Source: STR Trade Report
On March 11, 2013, USTR sent a letter to the US International Trade Commission (ITC) advising the ITC that negotiators from the NAFTA parties reach agreement in principle on the fourth series of proposed modifications to the NAFTA origin rules. Based on this letter, the ITC has opened Investigation No. TA-103-027, Probable Economic Effect of [...]
On March 11, 2013, USTR sent a letter to the US International Trade Commission (ITC) advising the ITC that negotiators from the NAFTA parties reach agreement in principle on the fourth series of proposed modifications to the NAFTA origin rules.
Based on this letter, the ITC has opened Investigation No. TA-103-027, Probable Economic Effect of Certain Modifications to the North American Free Trade Agreement Rules of Origin that will examine the economic impact of these modifications on U.S. trade under NAFTA, total U.S. trade and domestic industries.
This investigation covers a wide variety of articles, including miscellaneous edible preparations; mineral fuels; products of the chemical or allied industries; plastics; rubber and related articles; cork; glass and glassware; copper, nickel, lead, tin, zinc and other base metals; nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery, mechanical appliances and related parts; electrical machinery and related parts; rail locomotives and parts; parts for trailers and semi-trailers; optical, medical, measuring or checking instruments and apparatus; certain furniture; certain toys and games; lighters; and smoking pipes.
There will be no public hearing in connection with this investigation but written submissions for the record are being accepted from all interested parties through June 4, 2013. The ITC expects to submit its advice to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative by November 12, 2013.
These days, Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) is the target of much hyperbolic and hysterical attack, based not on facts, but on myth stemming from the diverse agendas of the criticizing parties. One of the most recent attacks emanates from the Cato Institute. It is easily rebutted when one [...]
These days, Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) is the target of much hyperbolic and hysterical attack, based not on facts, but on myth stemming from the diverse agendas of the criticizing parties. One of the most recent attacks emanates from the Cato Institute. It is easily rebutted when one examines the actual facts. We summarize below the assertions, and then state the facts.
Fiction: The U.S. International Trade Commission/Section 337 is redundant.
Fact: A Section 337 complainant can have one-stop shopping within one case, to provide it relief against all infringing imports, with no need for personal jurisdiction over the defendants/respondents; and the relief in the form of an exclusion order will be enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The same relief is not available in any other U.S. forum. In other U.S. fora, an entity confronted by unfair acts from imported articles must sue multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, only where personal jurisdiction exists, enforcing the various judgments separately, on its own. Moreover, in such other fora, an entity may not be able to enforce monetary damages against foreign parties, leaving the complaining party without a remedy for the unfair act committed.
Finally, a complainant can get speedy resolution at the International Trade Commission (ITC), which often is not possible in federal district court. This is particularly so when stays pending appeal are routinely granted with respect to remedial relief granted by other U.S. fora, whereas such stays are almost never granted with respect to relief issued by the ITC.
Indeed, the importance and uniqueness of the ITC/Section 337 are clear—if Section 337 were redundant, companies would have no need to bring both a district court action and an ITC action. The fact that so many entities bring both highlights that Section 337 fulfills a different role from that of a federal district court (in fiscal year 2012, almost 85 percent of the complaints filed at the ITC also involved parallel district court proceedings).
Click here to read the complete article.
Source: National Law Journal | Alice A. Kipel and Charles F. Schill
(World Trade Interactive) The International Trade Commission released July 28 The Year in Trade 2010, its annual review of U.S. trade-related activities. This publication reviews the administration of U.S. trade laws and regulations, the operation of the World Trade Organization, U.S. free trade agreements and negotiations, and relations with major trading partners. As it does [...]
(World Trade Interactive)
The International Trade Commission released July 28 The Year in Trade 2010, its annual review of U.S. trade-related activities. This publication reviews the administration of U.S. trade laws and regulations, the operation of the World Trade Organization, U.S. free trade agreements and negotiations, and relations with major trading partners.
As it does virtually every year, the ITC report includes information on (a) antidumping, countervailing, safeguard, intellectual property rights infringement and section 301 investigations; (b) the operation of trade preference programs; (c) significant activities in the WTO, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum; (d) developments in bilateral and regional FTAs; (f) trade relations with major trading partners such as the European Union, Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, India and Russia; and (g) U.S. trade in goods and services. Read more here.
