The International Trade Administration has issued its preliminary results of the following antidumping duty administrative reviews:
On November 6, 2009, Brazil's Foreign Trade Chamber (CAMEX) issued its preliminary list of U.S. products that could be subject to additional duties of up to 100%, as the U.S. has not complied with World Trade Organization findings in the Brazil-initiated WTO dispute over U.S. subsidies provided to its producers, users and/or exporters of upland cotton.
The International Trade Administration has issued the final results of its antidumping duty administrative review of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, sheet, and strip from Korea for the period of October 2, 2007 through May 31, 2008.
The International Trade Administration has issued the final results of its countervailing duty administrative review of stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium for the period of January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007.
The International Trade Administration has made a preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of wire decking from China (C-570-950).
The following were among determinations of the Court of International Trade in cases involving antidumping or countervailing duty law in the period July 1-September 30, 2009. (See future issues of ITT for BP summaries of additional CIT decisions in the third quarter.)
At a meeting of the World Customs Organization Secretary General and CBP Acting Commissioner Ahern in late October, CBP officials confirmed the (full) entry into force on January 26, 2010 of the Importer Security Filing (10+2 data) requirements. The WCO Secretary General raised members' continued concerns about U.S. 100% scanning requirements by 2012, noting that the Globally Networked Customs concept could facilitate the risk management approach advocated by the WCO. (Report, posted 10/28/09, available at http://www.wcoomd.org/speeches/?v=1&lid=1&cid=2&id=176)
Level 3’s indication that it has begun seeing signs of renewed spending from its customers is preliminary, said Janco Partners, noting Level 3 management cautioned that the changes are occurring slowly. But the research firm said it expects to see more positive signs in coming quarters. Level 3’s efforts to develop growth in the rural broadband and mid- level enterprise markets could help enhance the company’s overall growth, it said. Meanwhile, the lower decline in core network services is a mildly positive indicator, the research firm said.
Great Lakes Communications and Superior Telephone won a 10-day temporary restraining order on the Iowa Utilities Board decision that required the companies and six other rural carriers to refund unauthorized intrastate switched access charges billed to Qwest and other big carriers (CD Oct 13 p10). The order, issued Thursday by the U.S. District Court in Sioux City, Iowa, stops the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) from reclaiming all blocks of telephone numbers assigned to Great Lakes, the court said. It also halts an Iowa Board proceeding asking Great Lakes why the company should be permitted to keep its certificate of public convenience and necessity. The order was necessary “to prevent irreparable harm to Great Lakes,” the court said. “Without telephone numbers, Great Lakes will not be able to provide any telecommunications services to its customers. Reclamation of its telephone numbers is likely to put Great Lakes out of business before its appeal of the Final Order could be considered.” The court said it hasn’t notified defendants NANPA or the Iowa Utilities Board about the restraining order because the NANPA “has already begun the number reclamation.” The court set a hearing for Tuesday on the Great Lakes and Superior’s motion for preliminary injunction, said Arent Fox attorney Ross Buntrock representing the rural carriers. A hearing on the merits will come later, he said.
That CE makers would bear “unconstitutional burdens” if the court denies their preliminary motion and orders New York City’s e-waste program to take effect “is not a foregone conclusion,” two municipalities and three green groups said in an amicus brief filed Tuesday that backs the city and co- defendant the Natural Resources Defense Council. The governments of Portland, Ore., and San Francisco filed the brief along with the New York State Association for Solid Waste Management, the Product Stewardship Institute and the New York State Product Stewardship Council. They want the court to postpone a decision on the CE industry’s constitutional claims until the New York Sanitation Department (DSNY) can rule on the e-waste collection plans manufacturers are required to file. The law allows DSNY to grant waivers for good cause, they said, and “there is no reason to assume that the city will not afford plaintiffs a good faith review of good faith objections.” The court can’t decide on the constitutional issues in the case “in the absence of any submitted or approved plans,” they said. “Plaintiffs unfairly assume that the city will require them to pursue an irrational e-waste management plan,” they said. “In the absence of such an occurrence, the claims have no substance at all.”