On June 4, 2008, the European Commission's proposal for a new Community Customs Code (aka, the Modernized Customs Code, MCC) was published in the European Union's Official Journal, meaning that the MCC will enter into force 20 days after June 4, 2008.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued a CSMS message which states that at approximately 11:56 EDT on June 9, 2008 Automated Commercial Environment users began experiencing slow responses impacting CBP and Trade users. Service was expected to be restored at 13:30 EDT. CBP notes that updates will follow if necessary. (CSMS 08-000101, dated 06/09/08, available at http://apps.cbp.gov/csms/viewmssg.asp?Recid=17109&page=&srch_argv=08-000101&srchtype=all&btype=&sortby=&sby.)
Don’t let Core Communications revamp its intercarrier compensation, AT&T, Verizon and six phone trade groups told a federal appeals court. In an intervening brief filed last week, they urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to deny Core’s appeal of an FCC order denying forbearance. The forbearance petition sought in effect to replace access charges with reciprocal compensation (CD July 27 p8). Oral argument is Oct. 7. In its brief, the phone group panned the Core appeal as “the latest in a long series of efforts by [Core] to promote its own short-term interest in regulatory arbitrage at the expense of rational, pro-competitive regulation.” Besides AT&T and Verizon, the brief was signed by the National Exchange Carrier Association, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, Nebraska Rural Independent Companies, Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies and Western Telecommunications Alliance. Core had no basis for seeking forbearance in the first place, said the intervenors. A carrier may ask for forbearance only from a regulation governing itself or a “class of telecommunications carriers” of which it’s a part, they said: “Core sought to impose a new set of regulations on other carriers… as a means of gaining competitive advantage.” Forbearance wouldn’t have given Core automatic relief, but create a “regulatory vacuum,” they said. Core’s petition “was, in substance, a request for new regulation, not a request for forbearance,” they said. Core didn’t comment. “Our reply brief is due on June 17, and we'll use that opportunity to address any issues raised by intervenors that merit a response,” said Michael Hazzard, the company’s lawyer. The forbearance appeal isn’t Core’s only case on ISP compensation. The D.C. Circuit also is weighing whether to grant a writ of mandamus forcing the FCC to clarify its ISP- bound traffic rules (CD May 6 p1). Reversing the forbearance order would give Core future relief only, whereas a mandamus could lead to retroactive relief.
The International Trade Administration and the International Trade Commission have each issued notices initiating automatic five-year Sunset Reviews on the above-listed antidumping duty orders.
The U.S. Census Bureau has issued its final rule, effective July 2, 2008, which amends 15 CFR Part 30 to make mandatory1 the filing of export information through the Automated Export System or AESDirect2, for all shipments where a Shipper's Export Declaration (SED) is currently required, etc.
The International Trade Commission has instituted a section 337 patent-based investigation of certain coaxial cable connectors and components thereof and products containing same pursuant to a complaint.
The International Trade Commission has instituted a section 337 patent-based investigation of certain semiconductor chips with minimized chip package size and products containing same pursuant to a complaint.
The U.S. formally challenged EU tariffs on some information technology products, said U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab. The U.S. filed Wednesday in Geneva for World Trade Organization dispute-settlement consultations with the EU. Japan also filed. The U.S. initiated the proceedings because the EU violated WTO’s 1996 Information Technology Agreement by putting duties on products that should be duty-free, Schwab said. If a 60-day settlement proceeding fails, the U.S. will litigate, she said.
The U.S. is formally challenged EU tariffs on some information technology products, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said Wednesday. The U.S. filed in Geneva for World Trade Organization dispute-settlement consultations with the EU. Japan also filed.
The U.S. formally challenged EU tariffs on some information technology products, said U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab. The U.S. filed Wednesday in Geneva for World Trade Organization dispute-settlement consultations with the EU. Japan also filed. The U.S. initiated the proceedings because the EU violated WTO’s 1996 Information Technology Agreement by putting duties on products that should be duty-free, Schwab said. If a 60-day settlement proceeding fails, the U.S. will litigate, she said.