The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain lip balm products, containers for lip balm, and components thereof.  The products at issue in the investigation are lip balm products included in generally spherical-shaped containers.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on June 12, 2015 by eos Products, LLC, and The Kind Group, LLC, both of New York, NY.  The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain lip balm products, containers for lip balm, and components thereof that infringe a patent asserted by the complainants.  The complainants request that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

OraLabs, Inc., of Parker, CO;
CVS Health Corporation, of Woonsocket, RI;
CVS Pharmacy, Inc., of Woonsocket, RI;
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., of Deerfield, IL;
Walgreen Co., of Deerfield, IL;
Dollar Tree, Inc., of Chesapeake, VA;
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., of Chesapeake, VA;
Five Below Inc., of Philadelphia, PA;
Wuxi Sunmart Science and Technology Co. Ltd., a/k/a Wuxi Sunmart Group Co., Ltd., a/k/a Wuxi Shengma Science & Technology Co., Ltd., of Wuxi, Jiangsu, China; and
Wuxi Sunmart Plastic Co., Ltd., of Wuxi, Jiangsu, China.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-961), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case.  The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing.  The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time.  Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation.  USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain toner supply containers and components thereof.  The products at issue in the investigation are toner supply containers for use in copy machines.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Canon Inc. of Tokyo, Japan; Canon U.S.A., Inc., of Melville, NY; and Canon Virginia, Inc., of Newport News, VA, on June 12, 2015.  The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain toner supply containers and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainants.  The complainants request that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., of Wu-Chi Town, Taichung County, Taiwan; and
Color Imaging, Inc., of Norcross, GA.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-960), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case.  The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing.  The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time.  Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation.  USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that a U.S. industry is materially injured by reason of imports of certain steel nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam that the U.S. Department of Commerce has determined are sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the government of Vietnam.

Vice Chairman Dean A. Pinkert and Commissioners Irving A. Williamson, David S. Johanson, and Rhonda K. Schmidtlein voted in the affirmative.  Chairman Meredith M. Broadbent voted in the negative.  Commissioner F. Scott Kieff did not participate in these investigations.

As a result of the USITC’s affirmative determinations, Commerce will issue a countervailing duty order on imports of these products from Vietnam and antidumping duty orders on imports of these products from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam.

The Commission’s public report Certain Steel Nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam  (Investigation Nos. 701-TA-521 and 731-TA-1252-1255 and 1257 (Final), USITC Publication 4541, July 2015) will contain the views of the Commissioners and information developed during the investigations.

The report will be available by July 27, 2015; when available, it may be accessed on the USITC website at: http://pubapps.usitc.gov/applications/publogs/qry_publication_loglist.asp.

 

---

 

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Office of Industries
Washington, DC 20436

FACTUAL HIGHLIGHTS

Certain Steel Nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-521 and 731-TA-1252-1255 and 1257 (Final)

Product Description: Certain steel nails covered by these investigations have a nominal shaft length not exceeding 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made from round wire and nails cut from flat-rolled steel. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be of any type of steel, and may have any type of surface finish, head, shank, point, and shaft diameter. Certain steel nails may be in bulk or they may be collated for use in pneumatic nailing tools in any manner using any material. Excluded from the scope of these investigations are steel roofing nails that meet the specifications of Type I, Style 20 nails as identified in Tables 29 through 33 of ASTM Standard F1667 (2013 revision); nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7317.00.20.00 and 7317.00.30.00; nails less than one inch in length that are a part of an unassembled carpentry or furniture article, if the number of nails is 60 or less; and nails of any length packaged in combination with non-subject articles, if the total number of nails is less than 25. Also excluded are certain case-hardened nails, corrugated nails, and thumb tacks.

Status of Proceedings:

1. Type of investigations: Final antidumping and countervailing duty.
2. Petitioner: Mid Continent Nail Corporation, Poplar Bluff, MO.
3. Preliminary investigations instituted by the USITC: May 29, 2014.
4. USITC hearing: May 14, 2015.
5. USITC vote: June 16, 2015.
6. USITC views to the U.S. Department of Commerce: July 6, 2015.

U.S. Industry:

1. Number of U.S. producers in 2014: Fifteen.
2. Location of producers’ plants: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas.
3. Employment of production and related workers in 2014: 746.
4. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments in 2014: $209.7 million.
5. Apparent U.S. consumption in 2014: $895.0 million.

U.S. Imports:

1. Total U.S. imports during 2014: $685.3 million.[1]
2. Leading sources during 2014: China, Taiwan, Oman, Korea (in terms of total value).

---

[1] Value of subject imports withheld to avoid disclosure of business proprietary information.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain touchscreen controllers and products containing the same.  The products at issue in the investigation include touchscreens and related technology that are typically incorporated into smartphones and other similar devices.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Synaptics Incorporated of San Jose, CA, on April 21, 2015.  The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain touchscreen controllers and products containing the same that infringe patents asserted by the complainant.  The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

Shenzhen Huiding Technology Co., Ltd., a/k/a Shenzhen Goodix Technology Co., Ltd., of Futian Freetrade Zone, Shenzhen, China;
Goodix Technology Inc. of San Diego, CA; and
BLU Products, Inc. of Doral, FL.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-957), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case.  The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing.  The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time.  Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation.  USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain recombinant factor VIII products.  The products at issue in the investigation are recombinant Factor VIII products to treat patients with hemophilia A.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Baxter International Inc. of Deerfield, IL; Baxter Healthcare Corporation of Deerfield, IL; and Baxter Healthcare SA of Glattpark (Opfikon) Switzerland, on April 16, 2015.  The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain recombinant factor VIII products that infringe patents asserted by the complainants.  The complainants request that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

Novo Nordisk A/S of Bagsvaerd, Denmark; and
Novo Nordisk Inc. of Plainsboro, NJ.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-956), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case.  The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing.  The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time.  Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation.  USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The global rice market is characterized by relatively low trading volumes and heavy government intervention in both imports and exports, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission in its report Rice: Global Competitiveness of the U.S. Industry.

Exports only account for 8% of global rice production, significantly less than for other grains and oilseeds even though rice serves as a staple in the diet of more people than any other food, according to the report.

The USITC, an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency, prepared the report at the request of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

The report states that government intervention is often aimed at keeping prices affordable, especially for low-income consumers. In some cases, government intervention also encourages domestic production to promote national self-sufficiency. Other highlights of the report include:

• Global rice production and consumption are highly concentrated in Asia. Rice is the primary staple food for most of the population in Asia, especially for the poor. [Read More]

• The top three worldwide exporters are India, Thailand, and Vietnam, followed by Pakistan and the United States.

• Of government policies for rice in place in 2013, import tariffs on rice in major consuming countries had the largest impact on U.S. production and exports. [Read More]

• The United States faces little direct competition in its domestic market, but in recent years it has lost market share in key export markets, such as Mexico, Central America, the European Union, Haiti, and Ghana.  The United States exports about 50 percent of its production. [Read More]

• The major rice producing countries can be characterized as follows: 1) major consumers and surplus producers, 2) major consumers and importers, or 3) major exporters but not major consumers.

• Countries that are both major rice consumers and surplus producers, such as India and Thailand, typically provide support for rice producers and consumers. These countries also impose export controls if prices rise.

• Countries that are principally rice consuming and importing countries, such as Indonesia and the Philippines, typically provide a support for rice producers and consumers, and maintain control of rice imports, generally through state trading.

• Countries that are major exporters of rice but not major consumers, such as the United States and Uruguay, typically provide less extensive support for rice producers than do major consuming countries.

• [Read More]

• Low-cost producers of long grain white rice (the most-commonly traded rice type and form) include Burma, Cambodia, India, Pakistan, Uruguay, and Vietnam, while the most highly reliable exporters of long grain white rice include Uruguay and the United States. [Read More]

As requested, the report provides:

• an overview of the rice industry in the United States and other major global producing and exporting countries,
• information on recent trade trends and developments in the global market for rice,
• a comparison of the competitive strengths and weaknesses of rice production and exports in the United States and other major exporting countries,
• a quantitative assessment of the impact of government policies and programs of major producing and exporting countries, and
• an overview of the impact on the U.S. rice industry of rice exports from the highlighted countries to the United States and to traditional markets of the United States.

The report features quantitative analyses of policies and production changes that affect the global rice industry. These policy measures include production policies, consumption policies, and trade policies. Quantitative analyses used the RiceFlow model, a global partial-equilibrium model of three types of rice (long grain, medium and short grain, and aromatic), and three different processing levels (paddy or rough, brown, and white rice). The report also includes information on competitiveness of rice production in selected producing countries. The report provides a description of rice production, consumption, and trade, by region, including:

• The United States  [Read More]
• East Asia  [Read More]
• South Asia  [Read More]
• Southeast Asia Mainland  [Read More]
• Southeast Asia Islands  [Read More]
• South America  [Read More]

Rice: Global Competitiveness of the U.S. Industry (Inv. No. 332-549, USITC publication 4530, April 2015) is available on the USITC's Internet site at http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4530.pdf.

USITC general factfinding investigations, such as this one, cover matters related to tariffs or trade and are generally conducted at the request of the U.S. Trade Representative, the House Committee on Ways and Means, or the Senate Committee on Finance. The resulting reports convey the USITC's objective findings and independent analyses on the subject investigated. The USITC makes no recommendations on policy or other matters in its general factfinding reports. Upon completion of each investigation, the USITC submits its findings and analyses to the requester. General factfinding reports are subsequently released to the public, unless they are classified by the requester for national security reasons.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that revoking the existing antidumping duty order on saccharin from China would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

As a result of the Commission’s negative determination, the existing order on imports of this product from China will be revoked. 

All six Commissioners voted in the negative.

Today’s action comes under the five-year (sunset) review process required by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.  See the attached page for background on this five-year (sunset) review.

The Commission’s public report Saccharin from China (Inv. No. 731-TA-1013 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4534, May 2015) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the review.

The report will be available after June 10, 2015.  After that date, it may be accessed on the USITC website at: http://pubapps.usitc.gov/applications/publogs/qry_publication_loglist.asp.

 

---

 

BACKGROUND

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.

The Commission’s institution notice in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file responses with the Commission concerning the likely effects of revoking the order under review as well as other information.  Generally within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review.  If responses to the USITC’s notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.

The Commission generally does not hold a hearing or conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews.  Commissioners base their injury determination in expedited reviews on the facts available, including the Commission’s prior injury and review determinations, responses received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection with the review, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.

The five-year (sunset) review concerning Saccharin from China was instituted on May 1, 2014.

On August 4, 2014, the Commission voted to conduct a full review.  All six Commissioners concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and that the respondent group response was inadequate, but that circumstances warranted a full review.

A record of the Commission’s vote to conduct a full review is available from the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.  Requests may be made by telephone by calling 202-205-1802.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that revoking the existing antidumping duty orders on polyvinyl alcohol from China and Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.  The Commission further determined that revoking the existing antidumping duty order on polyvinyl alcohol from Korea would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

As a result of the Commission’s affirmative determinations, the existing orders on imports of this product from China and Japan will remain in place.  As a result of the Commission’s negative determination, the existing order on imports of this product from Korea will be revoked.

All six Commissioners voted in the affirmative with respect to China and Japan and in the negative with respect to Korea.

Today’s action comes under the five-year (sunset) review process required by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.  See the attached page for background on these five-year (sunset) reviews.

The Commission’s public report Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, and Korea (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1014, 1016, and 1017 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4533, May 2015) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the reviews.

The report will be available after June 2, 2015.  After that date, it may be accessed on the USITC website at: http://pubapps.usitc.gov/applications/publogs/qry_publication_loglist.asp.

---

BACKGROUND

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.

The Commission’s institution notice in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file responses with the Commission concerning the likely effects of revoking the order under review as well as other information.  Generally within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review.  If responses to the USITC’s notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.

The Commission generally does not hold a hearing or conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews.  Commissioners base their injury determination in expedited reviews on the facts available, including the Commission’s prior injury and review determinations, responses received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection with the review, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.

The five-year (sunset) reviews concerning Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, and Korea were instituted on March 3, 2014.

On June 6, 2014, the Commission voted to conduct full reviews.  Commissioners David S. Johanson, Meredith M. Broadbent, and F. Scott Kieff concluded that the domestic group response for these reviews was adequate and that the respondent group responses were inadequate, but that circumstances warranted full reviews.  Then-Chairman Irving A. Williamson and Commissioners Dean A. Pinkert and Rhonda K. Schmidtlein concluded that the domestic group response for these reviews was adequate and that the respondent group responses were inadequate, and voted for expedited reviews.

A record of the Commission’s vote to conduct full reviews is available from the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.  Requests may be made by telephone by calling 202-205-1802.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain protective cases for electronic devices and components thereof.  The products at issue in the investigation are certain types of protective cases that are typically used for consumer devices such as smartphones, tablets, and notebook computers.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Otter Products, LLP, of Fort Collins, CO, on March 11, 2015.  An amended complaint was filed on March 25, 2015.  The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain protective cases for electronic devices and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by Otter Products.  The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

Speculative Product Design, LLC, of San Mateo, CA; and
Tech21 UK Limited of Twickenham, United Kingdom.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-955), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case.  The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing.  The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time.  Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation.  USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

Subscribe to U.S. International Trade Commission