The Commerce Department published notices in the Sept. 9 Federal Register on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
The U.S. International Trade Commission said it began preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigations (Nos. 701-TA-501 and 731-TA-1226 (Preliminary)) to decide if there's a reasonable indication that a U.S. industry or potential industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury due to imports of chlorinated isocyanurates from China and Japan. The imports are alleged to be sold in the U.S. at less than fair value by Japan and alleged to be subsidized by China, it said in a Federal Register notice scheduled for Sept. 10.
The Commerce Department issued the preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea (C-580-818). The CV rates for all three companies under review were preliminarily found to be de minimis1. These CV rates are not in effect. Commerce may modify them in the final results of this review and change the estimated CV cash deposit rate for these companies.
A nearly nationwide preliminary injunction against FilmOn X’s streaming TV retransmission service, requested by broadcasters, was granted by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer in Washington, D.C., according to court filings Thursday. Broadcasters had requested that the injunction apply throughout the U.S., but Collyer exempted the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, since a similar injunction against FilmOn competitor Aereo was struck down by the 2nd Circuit (WID April 2 p3). The 9th Circuit had previously issued an injunction against FilmOn there, which is on appeal (WID Aug 29 p7). FilmOn “is in no meaningful way different from cable television companies, whose relationship with broadcasters such as Plaintiffs was the primary motivation” for the 1976 Copyright Act, said Collyer’s memorandum opinion. After considering the rulings in previous cases in other circuits on similar copyright issues -- the remote-DVR case Cablevision and broadcasters’ unsuccessful cases against Aereo -- Collyer concluded “that the Copyright Act forbids FilmOn X from retransmitting Plaintiffs’ copyrighted programs over the Internet,” said the opinion. FilmOn didn’t comment. Thursday’s ruling increases the likelihood of a circuit split and a FilmOn or Aereo case making it to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Wells Fargo analyst Marci Ryvicker in an email to investors. “Ultimately, we believe Aereo’s legality is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court,” said Ryvicker. “We view last night’s news as a positive catalyst for the pure-play broadcast stocks, as well as for the broadcast networks,” she said.
A nearly nationwide preliminary injunction against FilmOn X’s streaming TV retransmission service, requested by broadcasters, was granted by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer in Washington, D.C., according to court filings Thursday. Broadcasters had requested that the injunction apply throughout the U.S., but Collyer exempted the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, since a similar injunction against FilmOn competitor Aereo was struck down by the 2nd Circuit. The 9th Circuit had previously issued an injunction against FilmOn there, which is on appeal (CED Aug 29 p8). FilmOn “is in no meaningful way different from cable television companies, whose relationship with broadcasters such as Plaintiffs was the primary motivation” for the 1976 Copyright Act, said Collyer’s memorandum opinion. After considering the rulings in previous cases in other circuits on similar copyright issues -- the remote-DVR case Cablevision and broadcasters’ unsuccessful cases against Aereo -- Collyer concluded “that the Copyright Act forbids FilmOn X from retransmitting Plaintiffs’ copyrighted programs over the Internet,” said the opinion. FilmOn didn’t comment. Thursday’s ruling increases the likelihood of a circuit split and a FilmOn or Aereo case making it to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Wells Fargo analyst Marci Ryvicker in an email to investors. “Ultimately, we believe Aereo’s legality is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court,” said Ryvicker. “We view last night’s news as a positive catalyst for the pure-play broadcast stocks, as well as for the broadcast networks,” she said.
The Commerce Department published notices in the Sept. 6 Federal Register on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
The Commerce Department issued the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on carbon steel flat products from Korea (A-580-816). The agency found a zero AD rate for Hyundai HYSCO. If continued in the final results, entries from Hyundai HYSCO during the period of review will be liquidated without regard to AD duties, and its merchandise will not be subject to an AD cash deposit requirement until further notice. These preliminary results are not in effect. Commerce may modify them in the final results of this review and change the estimated AD cash deposit rates for these companies.
Congress never intended for Section 215 of the Patriot Act to authorize the phone surveillance the National Security Agency has engaged in, said an author of the 2001 law. House Judiciary Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., filed an amicus brief Wednesday in support of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA Director Keith Alexander, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller, filed in the U.S. District Court in New York in late August (CD Aug 29 p2). The NSA had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit and defended its surveillance. Sensenbrenner plans to follow up his concerns with new surveillance legislation introduced once the congressional recess ends.
Congress never intended for Section 215 of the Patriot Act to authorize the phone surveillance the National Security Agency has engaged in, said an author of the 2001 law. House Judiciary Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., filed an amicus brief Wednesday in support of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA Director Keith Alexander, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller, filed in the U.S. District Court in New York in late August (WID Aug 29 p1). The NSA had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit and defended its surveillance. Sensenbrenner plans to follow up his concerns with new surveillance legislation introduced once the congressional recess ends.
Mexico's Diario Oficial of Sept. 5 lists notices from the Secretary of the Economy as follows: