Source: https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/agencies/international-trade-commission/2005/08
Timestamp: 2020-08-09 03:31:07
Document Index: 517394487

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 201', 'art 201', 'art 207', 'art 207', 'art 201', 'art 201', 'art 207', 'art 207']

International Trade Commission August 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents :: Justia Regulation Tracker
Justia Regulation Tracker International Trade Commission 2005 August
International Trade Commission August 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents
Document Number: 05-17164
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/30/05-17164.html
Document Number: 05-17057
The Commission is soliciting proposals from interested parties and agencies to amend the international Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Harmonized System), including the rules of interpretation, section and chapter notes and the texts of the headings and subheadings, with a view to keeping the System current with changes in technology and trade patterns. Specific proposals in this connection will be reviewed by the Commission staff for potential submission to the World Customs Organization (WCO), in Brussels, Belgium.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/29/05-17057.html
In the Matter of Certain Digital Image Storage and Retrieval Devices; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation
Document Number: 05-17052
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.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/29/05-17052.html
Document Number: 05-16836
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/24/05-16836.html
Document Number: 05-16606
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.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/22/05-16606.html
Document Number: 05-16544
Following receipt on August 9, 2005 of a request form 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. 332-470, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2005 Review. 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 HTS subheading 1302.39.0010. 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, on a different time schedule, with respect to the probable economic effect of the elimination of U.S. duties on certain watches. The Commission will provide that advice in February 2006 in its report on investigation No. 332-471, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2005 Special Review on Watches. As requested by the USTR, the Commission will provide advice as to the probable economic effect on United States industries producing like or directly competitive articles and on consumers of the restoration of India for duty-free treatment under the GSP for HTS subheading 2916.39.15. As requested by the USTR and in accordance with section 503(d)(1)(A) of the 1974 Act, the Commission will provide advice on whether any industry in the United States is likely to be adversely affected by a waiver of the competitive need limits specified in section 503(c)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act for the Philippines for HTS subheading 0804.50.80; for Brazil for HTS subheading 4412.19.40; and for Turkey for HTS subheadings 6802.21.10 and 6802.91.20. As requested by the USTR, the Commission will provide its advice no later than November 10, 2005. With respect to the competitive need limit in section 503(c)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the 1974 Act, the Commission, as requested, will use the dollar value limit of $115,000,000.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/22/05-16544.html
Document Number: 05-16543
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/22/05-16543.html
Document Number: 05-16542
Following receipt of a request on July 29, 2005, from the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the Commission instituted investigation No. 332-472, Probable Economic Effect of the Reduction of U.S. Tariffs: Update of Advice for Certain Items, under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)). Background: In August 2002, at the request of the USTR, the Commission provided advice as to the probable economic effect of implementing certain tariff reduction scenarios (Inv. No. 332-440, Probable Economic Effect of the Reduction or Elimination of U.S. Tariffs). The advice was based on 2002 U.S. Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) nomenclature and 2000 trade data. In his letter of July 29, 2005, the USTR noted that U.S. imports of certain products have risen significantly since 2000, and directed that the Commission update its advice on products that have experienced a substantial increase in imports as defined by certain criteria. As requested by the USTR, the Commission will provide advice as to the probable economic effect on industries producing like or directly competing articles and on consumers of reducing U.S. tariffs by 75 percent on dutiable imports from all U.S. trading partners for products (8-digit HTS items) that meet all of the following criteria: At least a 50-percent increase in the value of dutiable imports from 2000-2004; At least a $10 million increase in the value of dutiable imports from 2000-2004; Dutiable imports were valued at more than $500,000 in 2000; A 2004 ad valorem equivalent U.S. tariff on dutiable imports of at least 5 percent; and The Commission's 2002 advice for the item did not indicate a substantial adverse effect on U.S. industry as a result of U.S. tariff elimination. The USTR requested that the Commission base its advice on 2005 HTS nomenclature and 2004 trade data. He also asked that the advice include a concordance to the 1996 Harmonized System nomenclature that is being used in the WTO negotiations. In addition, he requested that the report identify the five largest sources of dutiable imports (including import values) for each item analyzed under the criteria identified above. The USTR also asked that the Commission provide supplementary analysis that examines factors affecting trade and the competitive position of U.S. industry if, in conducting its analysis based on the more recent data, the Commission identifies items for which the 75 percent tariff reduction scenario indicates a greater adverse effect on U.S. industry than was indicated for those items under the tariff elimination scenario presented in the 2002 report. As requested, the Commission will transmit its report by no later than December 13, 2005.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/22/05-16542.html
Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn Tractors, Riding Lawnmowers, and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review and on Review To Modify an Enforcement Initial Determination; Termination of Proceedings
Document Number: 05-16426
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.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/19/05-16426.html
Document Number: 05-16425
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/19/05-16425.html
Document Number: 05-16342
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/18/05-16342.html
Document Number: 05-16341
The Commission's notice published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2005 (70 FR 45746) contained a typographical error that incorrectly identified ``February 21, 2005'' as the final date for receipt of any written submissions to the United States International Trade Commission regarding 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)). The correct date for written submissions on this investigation is February 21, 2006.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/18/05-16341.html
Document Number: 05-16340
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).
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/18/05-16340.html
Document Number: 05-16339
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/18/05-16339.html
Document Number: 05-16245
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).
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/17/05-16245.html
Document Number: 05-16222
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that there is no violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 by Dominant Semiconductors Sdn. Bhd. (``Dominant'') with regard to United States Patent No. 6,576,930 and that the Commission has determined to remand the investigation with respect to certain other patents to the presiding administrative law judge.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/16/05-16222.html
Document Number: 05-16057
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.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/12/05-16057.html
Document Number: 05-15938
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 8, 2005, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Fabio Perini North America, Inc., of Green Bay, Wisconsin. 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 tissue converting machinery, including rewinders, tail sealers, trim removers, and components thereof, by reason of infringement of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,979,818, claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. Re. 35,729, and claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,475,917. 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.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/11/05-15938.html
Document Number: 05-15935
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.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/11/05-15935.html
Certain Systems for Detecting and Removing Viruses or Worms, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Termination of Investigation; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and a Cease and Desist Order
Document Number: 05-15934
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has terminated the above-captioned investigation in which it has found a violation of the Tariff Act of 1930 and has issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/11/05-15934.html
In the Matter of Certain Personal Computers, Monitors and Components Thereof; Notice of Investigation
Document Number: 05-15826
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.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/10/05-15826.html
Document Number: 05-15773
Following receipt of a petition filed on August 2, 2005, on behalf of Allied Tube and Conduit Corp., Harvey, IL; IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Camanche, IA; Maruichi American Corp., Santa Fe Springs, CA; Maverick Tube Corp., Chesterfield, MO; Sharon Tube Co., Sharon, PA; Western Tube Conduit Corp., Long Beach, CA; Wheatland Tube Co., Wheatland, PA; and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Pittsburgh, PA; the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-421-06, Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From China, under section 421(b) of the Act to determine whether circular welded non-alloy steel pipe \1\ from China is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like or directly competitive products.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/10/05-15773.html
Document Number: 05-15572
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,
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/08/05-15572.html
Document Number: 05-15492
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 5, 2005 under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Portfolio Technologies, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois. A letter, with attachments, amending and supplementing the complaint, was filed on July 27, 2005. The complaint, as amended and 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 male prophylactic devices by reason of infringement of claims 1-27, 31-33 and 36 of U.S. Patent No. 5,082,004. 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.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/05/05-15492.html
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/05/05-15491.html
Document Number: 05-15263
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/03/05-15263.html
Document Number: 05-15262
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.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/03/05-15262.html
Document Number: 05-15260
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 1, 2005, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Unilin Beheer B.V. of the Netherlands, Flooring Industries Ltd. of Ireland, and Unilin Flooring N.C. LLC of Thomasville, North Carolina. 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 laminated floor panels by reason of infringement of claims 1, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 37, 52, 65, and 66 of U.S. Patent No. 6,006,486, claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,490,836, and claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,874,292. 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 exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders.
https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/08/03/05-15260.html