The International Trade Administration and the International Trade Commission have each issued notices initiating automatic five-year Sunset Reviews on the above-listed antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
The International Trade Administration has issued a notice announcing the opportunity to request administrative reviews by October 31, 2007 for individual producers or exporters subject to the following antidumping and/or countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements:
The International Trade Administration has initiated administrative reviews of the following antidumping (AD) and countervailing (CV) duty orders for certain specified companies listed in the initiation notice:
The International Trade Administration frequently issues notices on antidumping and countervailing duty orders which Broker Power considers to be "minor" in importance as they concern actions that occur after an order is issued and neither announce nor cause any changes to an order's duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective period.
The International Trade Administration frequently issues notices on antidumping and countervailing duty orders which Broker Power considers to be "minor" in importance as they concern actions that occur after an order is issued and neither announce nor cause any changes to an order's duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective period.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued its weekly tariff rate quota and tariff preference level commodity report as of September 24, 2007. This report includes TRQs on various products such as beef, sugar, dairy products, peanuts, cotton, cocoa products, tobacco, certain BFTA, DR-CAFTA, Israel FTA, JFTA, MFTA, SFTA, UAFTA (AFTA) and UCFTA (Chile FTA) non-textile TRQs, etc. Each report also includes the AGOA, ATPDEA, BFTA, DR-CAFTA, CBTPA, Haitian HOPE, MFTA, NAFTA, SFTA, and UCFTA TPLs and TRQs for qualifying apparel and/or other textile articles, the TRQs on worsted wool fabrics, etc. (CBP's weekly TRQ/TPL commodity report, dated 09/24/07, available at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/textiles_and_quotas/commodity/)
The International Trade Administration frequently issues notices on antidumping and countervailing duty orders which Broker Power considers to be "minor" in importance as they concern actions that occur after an order is issued and neither announce nor cause any changes to an order's duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective period.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued its weekly tariff rate quota and tariff preference level commodity report as of September 17, 2007. This report includes TRQs on various products such as beef, sugar, dairy products, peanuts, cotton, cocoa products, tobacco, certain BFTA, DR-CAFTA, Israel FTA, JFTA, MFTA, SFTA, UAFTA (AFTA) and UCFTA (Chile FTA) non-textile TRQs, etc. Each report also includes the AGOA, ATPDEA, BFTA, DR-CAFTA, CBTPA, Haitian HOPE, MFTA, NAFTA, SFTA, and UCFTA TPLs and TRQs for qualifying apparel and/or other textile articles, the TRQs on worsted wool fabrics, etc. (CBP's weekly TRQ/TPL commodity report, dated 09/17/07, available at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/textiles_and_quotas/commodity/)
On August 1, 2007, Senators Baucus, Hatch, and Stabenow introduced S. 1919, the Trade Enforcement Act of 2007. According to a Senate Finance Committee press release, S. 1919 would create tools to ensure proper enforcement of international trade agreements and domestic trade remedy laws, devote more resources to identify and remove trade barriers, institute greater oversight of trade enforcement, and clarify procedures for detecting and prosecuting violations of U.S. trade laws.
A federal judge in Colorado refused to make a class action of a suit by Qwest customers alleging they overpaid for phone service when the Bell’s failure to file interconnection agreements denied many competitive carriers cost breaks that could have driven down Qwest and competitive carrier retail rates. The suit in the U.S. District Court, Denver, says that unfiled Qwest preferential agreements with some competitive carriers violated federal antitrust laws and bans on anticompetitive price discrimination. But Qwest said class certification in Case 02-CV-01977-RPM is impossible because there’s no way for easily distinguishing the class of injured customers and no ready way to set damages for the class. The court agreed with Qwest, adding that the plaintiffs also failed to show there was evidence proving illegal discrimination classwide.