The Commerce Department will continue to subject innerspring units made by Reztec Industries Sdn Bhd in Malaysia to antidumping duties on uncovered innerspring units from China (A-570-928), it said in the final results of an anti-circumvention inquiry. Reztec’s innerspring units are assembled in Malaysia from Chinese parts. The agency made no changes from its preliminary results (see 13071010). According to Commerce, Reztec didn’t provide enough information on the value that comes from the Chinese parts relative to the value that comes from assembly in Malaysia, so the Commerce Department assumed that the assembly process was minor and found the majority of the value of Reztec’s innerspring units came from China.
A listing of recent antidumping and countervailing duty messages from the Commerce Department posted to CBP's website Jan. 16, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at addcvd.cbp.gov. (CBP occasionally adds backdated messages without otherwise indicating which message was added. ITT will include a message date in parentheses in such cases.)
FilmOn’s appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was put on a temporary hold while the court decides whether to delay the case until the Supreme Court is finished with Aereo, said a clerk’s order filed Wednesday. FilmOn is appealing a nearly nationwide preliminary injunction that prevents it from streaming copyrighted material anywhere in the U.S except the jurisdiction of the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Immediately after the Supreme Court granted cert in the Aereo case, the broadcaster plaintiffs in the FilmOn case asked the court to stay the case until the high court has ruled on Aereo. “If the Supreme Court decides that Aereo’s service infringes the petitioners’ copyrights, the same conclusion would be required here, thereby rendering moot any briefs already filed and any argument already held in this action,” said broadcasters. FilmOn opposed staying the D.C. Circuit case, because the company will have to remain under the preliminary injunction until it’s resolved. The injunction prevents FilmOn from “competing with Aereo on equal footing” and does “irreparable harm” to the company, FilmOn said. The Supreme Court case may not bear directly on the D.C. circuit case, despite the similarity between FilmOn and Aereo’s services, FilmOn said. “The Supreme Court could decide Aereo on grounds that are unique to the dispute between the different parties in that case,” said FilmOn. While the D.C. circuit decides whether to wait for the Supreme Court, the briefing schedule for the FilmOn case has been suspended. Broadcasters had been scheduled to enter a brief Jan. 17, and replies were due Jan. 31.
FilmOn’s appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was put on a temporary hold while the court decides whether to delay the case until the Supreme Court is finished with Aereo (see separate report above in this issue), said a clerk’s order filed Wednesday. FilmOn is appealing a nearly nationwide preliminary injunction that prevents it from streaming copyrighted material anywhere in the U.S except the jurisdiction of the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Immediately after the Supreme Court granted cert in the Aereo case, the broadcaster plaintiffs in the FilmOn case asked the court to stay the case until the high court has ruled on Aereo. “If the Supreme Court decides that Aereo’s service infringes the petitioners’ copyrights, the same conclusion would be required here, thereby rendering moot any briefs already filed and any argument already held in this action,” said broadcasters. FilmOn opposed staying the D.C. Circuit case, because the company will have to remain under the preliminary injunction until it’s resolved. The injunction prevents FilmOn from “competing with Aereo on equal footing” and does “irreparable harm” to the company, FilmOn said. The Supreme Court case may not bear directly on the D.C. circuit case, despite the similarity between FilmOn and Aereo’s services, FilmOn said. “The Supreme Court could decide Aereo on grounds that are unique to the dispute between the different parties in that case,” said FilmOn. While the D.C. circuit decides whether to wait for the Supreme Court, the briefing schedule for the FilmOn case has been suspended. Broadcasters had been scheduled to enter a brief Jan. 17, and replies were due Jan. 31.
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 15 sent back down the results of the 2009-10 antidumping duty administrative review on tapered roller bearings from China, ordering the Commerce Department to take another look at the rate it assigned to Changshan Peer Bearing. A change to the way Commerce valued some of the inputs Peer Bearing used to produce its bearings caused the companies AD rate to rise from 5.61% at the preliminary stage to 14.98% in the final results. CIT ruled that Commerce didn’t explain why it changed to the new data for valuing Peer Bearing’s inputs.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s granting of cert for the Aereo case is a “positive” for broadcasters because they initially asked the court to take up the case and it brings the matter closer to being resolved, said Wells Fargo analyst Marci Ryvicker in an email to investors. If broadcasters win, the high court proceeding will end with either Aereo’s being forced to shut down or its being allowed to remain in operation while paying broadcasters for content, she said. If Aereo has to pay broadcasters, “there will likely be wide-ranging implications regarding the definition of MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors], which could end up including over-the-top technologies/players,” Ryvicker said. An Aereo win would not be “a fundamental risk” because most retransmission and program carriage agreements are already in place and have long terms, she said. Sports leagues would likely move their content to cable only and broadcasters could program their channels to give the best content to retrans paying MVPDs while sending lower quality content over the airwaves, hurting Aereo’s longevity, Ryvicker said. Since the Supreme Court case concerns only the broadcasters’ preliminary injunction against Aereo, it’s not the final word in the matter, Ryvicker said. As the case proceeds at the district court level, “there will likely be greater discovery and tests of Aereo’s technology,” Ryvicker said.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s granting of cert for the Aereo case is a “positive” for broadcasters because they initially asked the court to take up the case and it brings the matter closer to being resolved, said Wells Fargo analyst Marci Ryvicker in an email to investors. If broadcasters win, the high court proceeding will end with either Aereo’s being forced to shut down or its being allowed to remain in operation while paying broadcasters for content, she said. If Aereo has to pay broadcasters, “there will likely be wide-ranging implications regarding the definition of MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors], which could end up including over-the-top technologies/players,” Ryvicker said. An Aereo win would not be “a fundamental risk” because most retransmission and program carriage agreements are already in place and have long terms, she said. Sports leagues would likely move their content to cable only and broadcasters could program their channels to give the best content to retrans paying MVPDs while sending lower quality content over the airwaves, hurting Aereo’s longevity, Ryvicker said. Since the Supreme Court case concerns only the broadcasters’ preliminary injunction against Aereo, it’s not the final word in the matter, Ryvicker said. As the case proceeds at the district court level, “there will likely be greater discovery and tests of Aereo’s technology,” Ryvicker said.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s granting of cert for the Aereo case is a “positive” for broadcasters because they initially asked the court to take up the case and it brings the matter closer to being resolved, said Wells Fargo analyst Marci Ryvicker in an email to investors. If broadcasters win, the high court proceeding will end with either Aereo’s being forced to shut down or its being allowed to remain in operation while paying broadcasters for content, she said. If Aereo has to pay broadcasters, “there will likely be wide-ranging implications regarding the definition of MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors], which could end up including over-the-top technologies/players,” Ryvicker said. An Aereo win would not be “a fundamental risk” because most retransmission and program carriage agreements are already in place and have long terms, she said. Sports leagues would likely move their content to cable only and broadcasters could program their channels to give the best content to retrans paying MVPDs while sending lower quality content over the airwaves, hurting Aereo’s longevity, Ryvicker said. Since the Supreme Court case concerns only the broadcasters’ preliminary injunction against Aereo, it’s not the final word in the matter, Ryvicker said. As the case proceeds at the district court level, “there will likely be greater discovery and tests of Aereo’s technology,” Ryvicker said.
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted cert on broadcasters’ appeal of their case seeking a preliminary injunction against streaming TV service Aereo, according to a court order released Friday. Justice Samuel Alito took no part in considering or issuing the decision, the order said, without disclosing why.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert on broadcasters’ appeal of their case seeking a preliminary injunction against streaming TV service Aereo, according to a court order released Friday. Justice Samuel Alito took no part in considering or issuing the decision, the order said, without disclosing why.