Nicole asks

When it comes to importing many things by the container, how shall I pay? What is the best and safest way to handle payment? Do I still use a letter of credit?

My reponse

I would definitely think about a letter of credit if you’re shipping by the container load. A letter of credit will help you to negotiate with the supplier if the goods aren’t what you expected, arrive late, etc.

Her follow up

When I use a letter of credit at my bank, will I also purchase other insurance? I’m trying to get an idea of the payment method, just because I’ve heard stories from one importer in particular who received an empty container from Thailand. The best part is that he paid up front, as requested. And so, that importer advised me to get an insurance company to deal with payment. He also advised me to be there (in country) to take pictures of the packaged container and locked and sealed container. I won’t let these stories scare me, though. Instead, I want to be prepared that the company in Thailand I choose, won’t rip me off. So, is the letter of credit all I need? And, if the company refuses? eg. “I’d like the money upfront.” or “I’d like 50% now.”

From my response

By using a letter of credit, you’re basically giving your payment to a third party who will help verify that your supplier upholds their end of the agreement. They don’t get paid until the third party (the bank holding the letter of credit) verifies that they’ve met all the terms of the contract (e.g. your container is not empty). You will still want to consider insurance to protect against things that the supplier might not want to be liable for - like if the shipment is damaged or lost in transit. For large shipments worth a lot of money, use both.

What do you think about all the China recalls… the bad dog food, toys, etc… even the recent “Aqua Dots” recall… do you think this has hurt the import business, or will hurt the Chinese import business in the future?

Answer

I have a daughter myself, so the recalls from China were a big deal to me. It seems like every toy she owns comes from either Taiwan or China, and I hated the thought of going through and tossing/returning the toys that she loves.

On the other hand, I’m just not that surprised that it happened. With the cost-cutting mindset of corporate America, we see corners like this get cut all the time. The fact that it came from China just gives the media a focal point. Those toys could have just as easily been coming from domestic industrial facilities.

My rant aside, you asked if I think it has hurt or will hurt import businesses in the future. While I think it has affected import businesses in the short term, I think the long-term effects of recalls from China will be minimal. In the short term Customs will probably increase inspections on certain profiled shipments which will lead to import delays and rejections, but I don’t believe those will have a long-term impact. Of course, we’ll also see some of the larger importers under scrutiny lose suppliers. That in itself will have its own positive effect on their competition.

In the really far out future, the biggest benefit will probably come from the importers themselves as they tighten their quality control on imported products. Do keep in mind, however, that quality vs. costs in business tends to be cyclical and we should be on the lookout for more of the same once the media attention dies down.

To answer your hidden question, I don’t think we’ll see a decrease in imports. China is still one of our largest trading partners and will continue to be for as long as they can keep their production costs below ours.

When all was said and done, the big question Gary had on his mind was whether or not he could make this thing work without getting clobbered and sunk by some unknown and unforeseen roadblock - a very typical concern with any new business venture. We then spent the next thirty minutes or so running down the list of stumbling blocks and addressing them one by one.

I’ve summarized the main points below, but first…

Here’s Gary’s original email

Hello Keeton ~

My name is Gary and I have a question for you if you don’t mind. I am thinking seriously about starting an import business from Vegas, and wanted your thoughts and opinion on if you think this is a good or bad idea. I have been to China 3 times in the past few years, and as such, have gained an extraordinary respect and appreciation for Asia and its people. Last summer I spent about a month in Shanghai… almost opened a night club and restaurant there with 4 Chinese partners, but opted out. I have always wanted to do business with Asia, and I think this may be the right move.

And, I have founded and ran several companies over the past 17 years in Houston… but moved out to Vegas about 6 months ago to begin a new chapter in my life. I have developed strong contacts here in the hotel, casino and restaurant industries… and over the years have created a strong network in China as well, including being good friends with a guy in Houston who has an import business now. I just got to thinking that this may be the perfect business for me to start up?

I just read over your web site this morning and you just seemed like someone that has a strong company, and may be able to give me your thoughts and advice if you could… I guess the point is, or main question would be, do you think it’s a good idea for me to open this kind of business??

Xie xie ni!

–
Sincerely,

Gary

The main points

Here are the two main points from the conversation and how Gary intended to address them. These are the most often overlooked areas in the import industry, and once addressed the rest becomes a matter of paperwork. We went into bit more depth than what you see here, but this will give you the gist.

Marketing - What are you going to sell and who are you going to sell it to?

It sounds pretty straightforward, but I’m often surprised at the number of people who want to get into the import industry, but don’t have a product in mind. Normally my recommendation is to pursue something that the potential importer has experience in so that they can more readily identify advantageous pricing, quality, and a potential market. While Gary was unsure what product he was going to import, he addressed the issue with a strong background in sales, marketing and business operations and would apply those to first finding a receptive market, determining a price point and then addressing their product needs.

Product Sourcing - Where are your products going to come from?

This is a huge stumbling block for first time importers. If you’re bringing products into the US, they have to come from somewhere. In Gary’s case the intended origin of his potential products was Asia, or China to be more precise. The problems most importers face here are finding the suppliers, negotiating, and figuring out who to trust. Much of the time this involves “knowing a guy”, hiring a local middleman, or some fairly expensive international trips. Gary addressed the issue with previous overseas visits and the establishment of some local business contacts.

My follow up response

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the call!

From our conversation, I think you’ll do well in the import industry. Like I said, the local marketing and the international product sourcing challenges are the biggest stumbling blocks for most people in your situation. If you feel like you’ve addressed them already, then you’re definitely ahead of the game. Aside from those issues, my biggest concern would be knowing the ins and outs of import regulations for the specific products you want to import.

At this point, you should probably have a meet-and-greet conversation with a licensed US Customs broker and/or a logistics provider in your area (sometimes they have both in the same office). I would also start checking with financial institutions about an international financing tool called an irrevocable letter of credit.

See http://www.usimporters.org/irrevocable-letter-of-credit.html for an explanation.

Thanks again and best of luck! Let me know how it turns out and drop me a line anytime. I’m happy to offer as much advice to you as I am able.

Keeton

Email from the importer

Hi,

I realize this request might be a little unorthodox, but I am hoping to find some advice from an importer…especially since I will be in the market for a new one due to some recent issues that have taken place with a us importer I was working with.

I was hoping I could get your advice on something. I realize you can’t offer legal advice and I wouldn’t ask you to.

But as an obvious expert, I am sure you can offer your 2 cents. It would be REALLY appreciated.

I had worked with an importer to import toy balls from China. I had ordered 9 inch balls and he sent me samples.

He had explained to me that the purpose of the pre-production samples was so that there was no confusion with the product that I would ultimately receive. The samples I approve would be the product I receive.

As it turns out - the samples they sent me were larger than the size I was asking for but I did not know it. They sent me samples and told me that they were samples of a 9 inch ball. (I now know that they were 10 inches)

The order finally got here for my 10,000 ball order and they are not the same as the pre-production sample balls that I approved. They are smaller. They are the actual 9 inch balls that I ordered but I did not know what they would look like, because they sent me samples of a larger ball and represented them as the 9 inch ball that I would receive.

The balls I received were smaller than the ones I approved and the importer is telling me there is nothing he can do.

He said I ordered 9 inch balls and I got 9 inch balls.

My argument is that I did not know that this is what the 9 inch ball looked like because the samples they sent , I was told were 9 inch balls and they blew up bigger than 9 inches and I liked the way they look so I approved them based on that fact and the 10,000 balls I ultimately received are different.

They are the factory’s actual 9 inch balls but are different than the samples I approved. I am not trying to be the bad guy, but I thought the samples I got would be the product I received…. And that is what I was told. The Importer I worked with is not willing to do anything to get this fixed.

The main issues are as follows:

1. I want the product of the sample I approved - I liked the samples better.

2. I used the samples to take photos of the product for my website and promo material and now would have to change it all to match the size of the balls I received.

3. I have used the pre production samples to promote the business while waiting for the shipment to arrive.

Do I have any recourse? Have you ever experienced this?

Any advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your time in reading this email.

Best Regards,

Name Withheld

My response

Hi Name Withheld,

You’re not going to like my answer.

The best and most common way to avoid your situation is through a financing tool called a letter of credit. Essentially, the buyer finds an international bank and gives their money plus a fee to the bank along with a conditional contract. Once all the conditions on the contract have been met (goods received in good order per specifications, etc.) the bank releases the funds to the seller.

Since you didn’t mention anything about a letter of credit, I’m assuming you don’t have one. In that case your best recourse would be some sort of legal action, but that might cost more than the balls.

Does that make sense?

Keeton

Some important definitions

Irrevocable Letter of Credit
Letter of credit in which the specified payment is guaranteed by the bank if all terms and conditions are met by the drawee and which cannot be revoked without joint agreement of both the buyer and the seller.

Inspection Certificate
A certificate issued by an independent agent or firm attesting to the quality and/or quantity of the merchandise being shipped. Such a certificate is usually required in a letter of credit for commodity shipments.

Issuing Bank
Bank that opens a straight or negotiable letter of credit and assumes the obligation to pay the bank or beneficiary if the documents presented are in accordance with the terms of the letter of credit.

The ITC, an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency, was originally asked by the Committee to complete a three-report series that collectively would provide an in-depth assessment of the U.S.-China trade and investment relationship and the U.S.-Asia-Pacific trade and investment relationship. In a letter received on May 29, 2007, the Committee asked the Commission to add additional components to the investigation in order to provide an in-depth assessment of the causes of the U.S.-China trade imbalance and whether and to what extent the People’s Republic of China uses various forms of government intervention to promote investment, employment, and exports. The Committee noted it may supplement its request further, including with questions related to the functioning of China’s labor market.

The ITC will revise its approach and timelines for the three studies to accommodate the Committee’s request.

The first report, to be delivered no later than seven months from the receipt of the Committee’s latest letter, will describe Chinese government practices and policies that support and attempt to influence decision making in China’s agricultural, manufacturing and services sectors and by individual firms. The second report, to be delivered within 14 months, will build on the first by comprehensively cataloguing and, where possible, quantifying the government policies and interventions described in the first study in specific sectors. The third report, to be delivered within 24 months, will combine two of the initially requested studies that describe changes in U.S.-Asia trade and assess how two global trends the fragmentation of production processes and the growth in foreign direct investment flows contribute to the growth in the U.S. trade deficit with China. Details about the second two reports will be announced when those reports are initiated.

The first report, China: Description of Selected Government Practices and Policies Affecting Decision-Making in the Economy, will describe and, where possible, quantify the practices and policies that central, provincial, and local government bodies in China use to support and attempt to influence decision making in China’s agricultural, manufacturing, and services sectors and by individual firms.

The ITC report will include chapters describing government policies related to the privatization of state-owned enterprises and private ownership; price coordination; industrial development, particularly policies that target specific industries; the banking and finance sectors, including policies and interventions to promote indicative lending and on the treatment of nonperforming loans; utility rates; infrastructure development; taxation; restraints on imports and exports; research and development; worker training and retraining; and the rationalization and closure of uneconomic enterprises. As requested, the Commission also will include an analysis of the impact of a recent policy directive from China’s State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission.

The ITC will hold a public hearing in connection with the investigation at 9:30 a.m. on September 6, 2007. Requests to appear at the public hearing should be filed with the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, and must be received no later than 5:15 p.m. on August 17, 2007.

The ITC also welcomes written submissions for the record. Written submissions (one original and 14 copies) should be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, at the above address and should be filed at the earliest practical date, but no later than 5:15 p.m. on September 20, 2007. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be available for public inspection.

Further information on the scope of this investigation and appropriate submissions is available in the ITC’s notice of investigation, dated June 21, 2007, which may be obtained from the ITC Internet site (www.usitc.gov) or by contacting the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.

ITC 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 Senate Committee on Finance, or the House Committee on Ways and Means. The resulting reports convey the Commission’s objective findings and independent analyses on the subject investigated. The Commission makes no recommendations on policy or other matters in its general factfinding reports. Upon completion of each investigation, the ITC submits its findings and analyses to the requester. General factfinding investigations reports are subsequently released to the public, unless they are classified by the requester for national security reasons.

At a later date, BIS will publish the names of the VEUs for whom this
license code can be reported. Until this list is published, please do
not use this license code.

Appendix F of the Automated Export System Trade Interface Requirements
(AESTIR) has been updated to reflect the new License Code. To review
the update, please see:

http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/export/aes/tech_docs/aestir/june04_intro/appendices/

All AESPcLink users must update their AESDirect code tables to reflect
the update of the License Code. Users of AESDirect who file via the
website at www.aesdirect.gov will have their code tables updated via
the program automatically.

For further information or questions, contact the U.S Census Bureau
AES Branch at 1-800-549-0595, menu option 1 or at askaes@census.gov.

For more information regarding this final rule, please see the BIS
website at http://www.bis.doc.gov

Subject: Importing from Indonesia

I am currently in communication with a company in Indonesia. We are looking into purchasing a container of custom furniture. I have never done this before, and don’t know where to start. Can you please recommend resources to answer these questions (and provided insight into the questions I should have the answers to before starting)?

1. Are there companies that handle shipping from the factory to my place of business (shipping, customs, freight, etc.).
2. Can I do the things listed in 1 on my own?
3. What is the time involved in the entire transaction?
4. What questions should I ask the manufacturer (eg. How does the product get from their place to the port of exit)
5. How do I find out if this company is legitimate and business worthy?
6. What are the payment methods that I should use?
7. When and how much do I pay(upfront, on arrival etc.)?

There are probably a lot of other things that I am unaware of. I am looking for the resource(s) to guide me through this process the first time.

Best regards,

Mike

Here were my responses:

Hi Mike,

I hate to push my own product too much, but the resources I recommend are the ones we sell on our site. They’re both designed to address a lot of the issues you’re dealing with.

http://www.usimporters.org/the-importers-survival-kit/
http://www.usimporters.org/the-beginners-guide/

To answer some of your immediate questions:

1. Are there companies that handle shipping from the factory to my place of business (shipping, customs, freight, etc.).

Yes. You want to enlist the aid of a freight forwarder. Check the yellow pages under freight, shipping and cargo, or something similar. These guys charge a little extra but can handle the entire transport process.

2. Can I do the things listed in 1 on my own?

Yes, but not recommended the first time out unless your shipment is very small.

3. What is the time involved in the entire transaction?

Depends on the responsiveness of your vendor and Customs, the method of transport (via air or sea), and how long it will take to truck or rail from the port of arrival to your location.

4. What questions should I ask the manufacturer (eg. How does the product get from their place to the port of exit)

You want to clearly outline what are called “incoterms.” They consist of a dozen or so common shipping arrangements people use and help to define each party’s responsibilities.

5. How do I find out if this company is legitimate and business worthy?

The best way to do that is to have a trusted overseas purchasing agent. Otherwise start with small shipments and build a relationship.

6. What are the payment methods that I should use?

These vary. International wire transfers are common, but risky while letters of credit are more complicated but with reduced risk.

7. When and how much do I pay(upfront, on arrival etc.)?

This is a personal preference. As with any new supplier, I would be uncomfortable paying too much in advance without an established relationship.

I hate not being able to go into more detail about these, but each question could have a 20 page answer by itself. Hopefully he’ll be able to use some of the information and answers provided to get him thinking in the right direction.

The investigation, Certain Textile Articles: Probable Effect of Modification of NAFTA Rules of Origin for Goods of Canada and Mexico (Sanitary Articles and Nonwoven Wipes) and for Goods of Canada (Chenille Fabrics), was requested by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).

As requested by the USTR, the ITC, an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency, will provide advice on the probable effect of the proposed NAFTA rules of origin modifications for sanitary towels or tampons and nonwoven wipes of viscose rayon staple fibers and chenille fabrics of acrylic fibers on U.S. trade under the NAFTA, total U.S. trade, and on domestic producers of the affected articles. If adopted, the rules changes would effectively extend duty- free and quota-free treatment to qualifying sanitary articles, nonwoven wipes, and chenille fabrics in the specified NAFTA countries, regardless of the source of the specified fibers.

The ITC expects to submit its advice to the USTR by June 15, 2007.

The ITC is seeking input for its new investigation from all interested parties and requests that the information focus on the articles for which the ITC is requested to provide information and advice. The ITC will not hold a public hearing in connection with the investigation; however, the ITC welcomes written submissions for the record. Written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436 and should be submitted at the earliest practical date but no later than 5:15 p.m. on May 16, 2007.

Further information on the scope of this investigation, the proposed rules of origin modification, and the procedures for written submissions is available in the ITC’s notice of investigation, dated May 3, 2007, which can be downloaded from the ITC Internet site (www.usitc.gov) or by contacting the Secretary at the above address.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) today released a public version of its confidential report on the probable economic effects of providing duty free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).

The report, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2006 Review, was requested by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).

As requested, the ITC provided advice as to the impact of granting waivers of the competitive need limits for Argentina for lithium carbonates and calcium silicon (HTS subheadings 2836.91.00 and 7202.99.20); for Brazil for refined copper cathodes and certain unalloyed copper wire rod (HTS subheadings 7403.11.00 and 7408.11.60); for India for cucumbers, including gherkins, certain hand- hooked carpets and other textile floor coverings, and certain color television reception apparatus (HTS subheadings 2001.10.00, 5703.10.20, and 8528.12.80); and for Thailand for radial bus or truck tires (HTS subheading 4011.20.10).

“Competitive need limits” represent the maximum import level of a product that is eligible for duty- free treatment under the GSP; once the limit is reached, trade is considered “competitive,” benefits are no longer needed, and imports of the article become ineligible for GSP treatment, unless a waiver is granted. With respect to the competitive need limit in section 503(c)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the 1974 Act, the Commission, as requested, will use the dollar value limit of $125,000,000.

The ITC submitted a confidential version of the report to the USTR on April 11, 2007.

Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2006 Review (Investigation No. 332-483, USITC publication 3919, April 2007) will be available on the ITC’s Internet site at http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/332/pub3919.pdf. A CD-ROM of the report may be requested by calling 202-205-2000 or by writing the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Requests may also be faxed to 202-205-2104.

ITC 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 Senate Committee on Finance, or the House Committee on Ways and Means. The resulting reports convey the Commission’s objective findings and independent analyses on the subjects investigated. The Commission makes no recommendations on policy or other matters in its general factfinding reports. Upon completion of each investigation, the ITC submits its findings and analyses to the requester. General factfinding investigation reports are subsequently released to the public unless they are classified by the requester for national security reasons.

The investigation, U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects, was requested by the U.S. Trade Representative in a letter received on March 30, 2007.

The Trade Act of 2002 requires the ITC to prepare a report that assesses the likely impact of proposed free trade agreements on the U.S. economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors and the interests of U.S. consumers. The ITC’s report, which will be public, is due to the President and the Congress no more than 90 days after the President actually signs the agreement, which he can do 90 days after he notifies the Congress of his intent to do so. The President notified the Congress on March 30, 2007, of his intent to enter into the TPA with Panama.

The ITC will hold a public hearing in connection with the investigation on May 16, 2007. Requests to appear at the hearing (one original and 14 copies) should be filed no later than 5:15 p.m. on May 7, 2007, with the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. For further information, call 202-205-2000.

The ITC also welcomes written submissions for the record. Written submissions (one original and 14 copies) should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission at the above address and should be submitted at the earliest practical date but no later than 5:15 p.m. on May 23, 2007. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be available for public inspection.

Further information on the scope of the investigation and the procedures for written submissions is available in the ITC’s notice of investigation, dated April 26, 2007, which can be obtained from the ITC Internet site (www.usitc.gov) or by contacting the Office of the Secretary at the above address or at 202-205-2000.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, components thereof, and products containing same. The products at issue in this investigation are used in portable, cordless devices like power tools and laptop computers.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company (3M IPC) of St. Paul, MN, on March 7, 2007. An amended complaint was filed on April 11, 2007. The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States of certain rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe patents owned by 3M IPC. The complainants request that the ITC issue a general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders.

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

Sony Corporation of Japan;
Sony Electronics, Inc., of San Diego, CA;
Lenovo Group Limited (Hong Kong) of Hong Kong;
Lenovo (United States) Inc. of Morrisville, NC;
CDW Corporation of Vernon Hills, IL;
Batteries Com, LLC, of Indianapolis, IN;
Hitachi Koki USA, Ltd., of Norcross, GA;
Matsushita Industrial Electric Co., Ltd., of Japan;
Panasonic Corporation of North America of Secaucus, NJ;
Total Micro Technologies Inc. of Irvine, CA; and
Sanyo Electric Company, Ltd., of Japan.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-600), the ITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The case will be referred to the Honorable Charles E. Bullock, an ITC administrative law judge, who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. Judge Bullock 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 ITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the ITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. ITC 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 (ITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain 3G Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) handsets and components thereof.

The products at issue in this investigation are cellular mobile telephones capable of operating on 3G WCDMA systems.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by InterDigital Communications Corporation of King of Prussia, PA, and InterDigital Technology Corporation of Wilmington, DE, on March 23, 2007, and supplemental letters filed on April 4, 2007 and April 16, 2007. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States of certain 3G Wideband Code Division Multiple Access handsets and components thereof that infringe patents owned by InterDigital. The complainants request that the ITC issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order.

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

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., of Korea;
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., of Ridgefield Park, NJ; and
Samsung Telecommunications America LLC of Richardson, TX.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-601), the ITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The case will be referred to the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, an ITC administrative law judge, who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. Judge Luckern 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 ITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the ITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. ITC 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 investigation, Wood Flooring and Hardwood Plywood: Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industries, was requested by the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, in a letter received on March 6, 2007.

As requested, the ITC, an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency, will provide an overview of the U.S. markets for solid and engineered wood flooring (both unfinished and factory finished products) and hardwood plywood; a description of the U.S. industries for wood flooring and hardwood plywood and those of the principal countries that supply the U.S. market; an examination of U.S. trade patterns and the factors affecting trade patterns, including tariffs and other border measures; an analysis of the factors affecting the competitive position of U.S. producers and the principal foreign suppliers to the U.S. market; and the views of industry, homebuilders, importers, and other interested parties on developments in the supply of and the demand for wood flooring and hardwood plywood, including the effect of imports and substitutes for each product.

The ITC will submit its report to the Committee by June 6, 2008.

The ITC will hold a public hearing in connection with the investigation at 9:30 a.m. on September 13, 2007. Requests to appear at the public hearing should be filed with the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, and must be received no later than 5:15 p.m. on August 22, 2007.

The ITC also welcomes written submissions for the record. Written submissions (one original and 14 copies) should be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, at the above address and should be filed at the earliest practical date, but no later than 5:15 p.m. on December 28, 2007. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be available for public inspection.

Further information on the scope of this investigation and appropriate submissions is available in the ITC’s notice of investigation, dated April 16, 2007, which may be obtained from the ITC Internet site (www.usitc.gov) or by contacting the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.

ITC 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 Senate Committee on Finance, or the House Committee on Ways and Means. The resulting reports convey the Commission’s objective findings and independent analyses on the subject investigated. The Commission makes no recommendations on policy or other matters in its general factfinding reports. Upon completion of each investigation, the ITC submits its findings and analyses to the requester. General factfinding investigations reports are subsequently released to the public, unless they are classified by the requester for national security reasons.

Charneski served as an Administrative Law Judge at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1995 until his ITC appointment. He previously served as an Administrative Law Judge at the U.S. Social Security Administration from 1994 to 1995. He was a trial attorney with the Mine Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor from 1991 to 1994 and an appellate attorney with that agency from 1988 to 1991.

Prior to that, Charneski served as Counsel to Commissioner L. Clair Nelson at the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission from 1983 to 1988. He was an attorney in the Office of the General Counsel at the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission from 1977 to 1983.

Charneski holds a juris doctor degree from St. John’s University School of Law and a bachelor of arts degree from St. Francis College. He is a member of the Bars of the District of Columbia and Virginia.

The U.S. International Trade Commission is an independent, nonpartisan, quasi-judicial federal agency that provides trade expertise to both the legislative and executive branches of government, determines the impact of imports on U.S. industries, and directs actions against certain unfair trade practices, such as patent, trademark, and copyright infringement

Free Trade Agreements in Region Promote U.S. Bilateral Trade

For U.S. companies looking to increase their bottom line by making new sales abroad, there’s never been a better time to export. As more and more American companies discover the opportunities that lie beyond our borders, many are taking advantage of free trade agreements (FTAs) to reach new customers around the world.

Last year, U.S. exports to countries where an FTA was in effect surpassed $437 billion, or 42 percent of U.S. exports—and today, the U.S. has FTAs in force with 14 countries. One key region where U.S. businesses are expanding their international sales is North Africa and the Middle East, where total trade with the U.S. has nearly doubled since 2003 to more than $138 billion last year—and continues to prosper with help from FTAs with Israel, Morocco, Jordan and Bahrain. The advantages of doing businesses with FTA countries are numerous, and in the North Africa/Middle East, these countries offer a variety of sales opportunities for U.S firms selling everything from aircraft and motor vehicles and parts to medical equipment, machinery, information technology, energy, franchising, services, and more.

Now that we’ve provided a general overview of the region, let’s take a closer look at why you should consider doing business in Israel, Morocco, Jordan and Bahrain.

Israel

Israel is a growing and sophisticated market for U.S. goods and services. With the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, Israel serves as an important market in the region. Its high-tech, pro-American business community is familiar with U.S. business culture, and a multitude of U.S. firms are already doing business with Israel. A Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC), signed in January 2007 to promote the transfer of U.S. technology and an increased acceptance of American technical standards, is expected to result in additional U.S. exports to Israel. Israel’s growing industries include safety and security equipment, medical devices, software, telecommunications, and defense.

Morocco

Positioned as a regional center for business, Morocco is on the crossroads of North Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. U.S. firms looking to do business in Morocco can benefit greatly from the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (FTA) as Morocco provides easy access to a market of 500 million consumers in the Mediterranean region. The FTA has also eliminated tariffs on 95 percent of current and industrial goods coming from the U.S. into Morocco. With 16 Regional Investment Centers, dedicated solely to assisting new business ventures, Morocco is steadily advancing internally toward more modernization and globalization. The FTA also provides a high level of intellectual property protection, consistent with standards set by U.S. law. Industry opportunities include telecommunications, IT, agriculture, electronics, tourism, and manufacturing. With this state-of-the-art protection, strategic location, internal improvements, and U.S.-Morocco FTA continues to create an excellent climate for U.S. trade and investment.

Jordan

Jordan’s economic reform and privatization efforts have resulted in a more open and business-friendly environment, and with its developing, knowledge-based economy, Jordan’s information technology and pharmaceutical sectors continue to flourish. With an annual growth rate of 7.5 percent over 2006, and a free trade agreement with the United States that has eliminated or reduced barriers to trade, Jordan offers excellent opportunities for U.S. exporters. Furthermore, Jordan boasts growing opportunities in the oil and gas, power generation, transportation, and transportation infrastructure. U.S. companies looking to tap the full potential of the Middle Eastern market can also benefit from Jordan’s strategic location as a springboard for expanding their export sales throughout the region.

Bahrain

The U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement has opened markets and increases opportunities for American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses. It opens Bahrain’s market for U.S. manufactured goods, agricultural products and services, and will also support economic reform and growth. Last year, bilateral trade between the U.S. and Bahrain exceeded USD 1.1 billion and U.S. exports have jumped 51 percent. Bahrain’s growing industries are aircraft and motor vehicles, machinery, pharmaceutical products, medical equipment, and much more. Bahrain is actively pursuing the diversification and privatization of its economy to reduce the country’s dependence on oil. With its positive commercial climate and incentives offered by the FTA, Bahrain becomes a growing prospect for U.S. businesses worldwide.

“Ensuring that our trading partners comply with their telecommunications trade commitments is fundamental to helping U.S. telecommunications operators and equipment manufacturers compete effectively abroad,” said Ambassador Schwab. “Market barriers impede our efforts to promote vibrant competitive telecommunications markets around the world. Removing these barriers and allowing greater market access in this sector will allow consumers around the world to communicate with friends or business colleagues faster, with a higher quality, and for less money. This year’s 1377 Review identifies practices that interfere with these objectives, and we will work to address these impediments throughout this year.”

This year’s 1377 Review focuses on country-specific concerns, as well as more general issues of concern. Those countries and issues where specific concerns arise include: (1) Egypt with respect to ensuring an open licensing regime for new operators and the public availability of Telecom Egypt’s interconnection arrangements; (2) Thailand with respect to submitting a revised GATS schedule to bind its recent market-liberalizing telecom reforms which it has so far failed to do; (3) Jamaica with respect to its universal service program that disproportionately applies to U.S. operators and raises questions as to its transparency; (4) Mexico with respect to ensuring cost-based interconnection rates, as well as providing market access for telecommunications equipment tested by U.S. testing laboratories; and; (5) Guatemala with respect to delays in ensuring interconnection between carriers.

This year’s 1377 Review also identified general issues of concern in several countries, including: (1) barriers to the provision of satellite capacity; (2) barriers to the provision of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services; (3) limitations on access to and use of public telecommunications services (including leased lines); and (4) issues related to regulatory independence, transparency, and excessive market entry requirements.

In addition to the problems identified in this year’s 1377 Review, USTR also marked significant progress on issues identified in past years’ reviews in several key markets, including: (1) Australia, which completed the privatization of its dominant operator; and (2) India, which took steps to enhance foreign direct investment in its market and address problems related to competitive access to submarine cables as well as continued its efforts to phase out its access deficit charge.

BACKGROUND

USTR will continue its efforts to open markets and expand trade opportunities in telecommunications through a range of activities including: engaging bilaterally and multilaterally with trading partners to ensure they fully implement their existing commitments; negotiating and adopting strong disciplines to eliminate or prevent the emergence of trade distorting barriers; and where warranted, initiating dispute settlement action.

The Telecommunications Annex of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) establishes an obligation to ensure reasonable and non-discriminatory access to and use of the public telecommunications network. The Annex is often complemented by additional commitments by WTO Members in their GATS services schedules to adhere to the WTO Reference Paper, which establishes pro-competitive rules in the telecommunications sector to ensure, among other things, interconnection with dominant carriers at cost-oriented rates and the impartiality and transparency of regulatory processes. To bolster the obligations under the WTO commitments, USTR has negotiated strong telecommunications provisions in U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs). These FTA provisions are designed to further promote effective market access for U.S. telecommunications providers. To the extent that these agreements are in force, USTR will continue to use them to assist in opening markets to give U.S. companies the ability to supply new and innovative services abroad.

The full results of the 2007 Section 1377 Review, click here

If you’ve never used the schedule before, the same website offers an overview of its use.

In some cases and with certain types of goods, an import license is required. Examples include alcohol, tobacco, firearms, animals, copyrighted materials, food and more. These items are regulated by the individual agencies governing that type of good. US Customs does not create the regulations, they simply enforce them for other agencies. In addition to the licensing of certain types of goods, the US Department of Homeland Security also regulates the licensing of Customs Brokers. A Customs Broker is an individual authorized by US Customs and the Dept. of Homeland security to transact Customs business on someone else’s behalf. Customs Brokers are extremely useful for first-time and experienced importers because they often have access to systems and knowledge to file Customs entries in an efficient manner and utilize importer best-practices to speed import clearances and reduce import duties.

CBP User Fees Increase

Fees for Certain Customs Services to Increase April 1, 2007

(01/29/2007)On October 22, 2004 the President signed the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-357). Section 892 of the Act amended Title 19 United States Code 58c to renew the fees provided under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which would have otherwise expired March 1, 2005, and to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to increase such fees by an amount not to exceed 10 percent in the period beginning fiscal year 2006 through the period for which the fees are authorized by law. It is noted that the law specifically mentions the Secretary of the Treasury, even though U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is now a component agency of the Department of Homeland Security. Regulations concerning user fees, among other customs revenue functions, were retained by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Treasury Department Order No. 100-16.

CBP is increasing the fees by the amounts authorized so that they more accurately reflect the actual costs of providing the services for which they are charged. On April 24, 2006, CBP published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register (71 FR 20922) proposing to amend the regulations in accordance with the current statutory provisions by increasing the fees for: (1) customs services provided in connection with the arrival of certain commercial vessels, commercial trucks, railroad cars, private aircraft and private vessels, passengers aboard commercial aircraft and commercial vessels, and barges or other bulk carrier arrivals, (2) each item of dutiable mail for which a customs officer prepares documentation, and (3) annual customs brokers permits. The comment period ended on May 24, 2006.

CBP published Final Rule 72 FR 3730 on January 26, 2007 advising of the fee increases. The new fee rates will be effective on April 1, 2007. ( Fees for Certain Services )

For information concerning user fee policy and rates, contact Mr. Jerry Petty, Director, Cost Management Division, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 4.5A Washington, DC 20229. Telephone: (202) 344-1317 Email: Jerry.Petty@dhs.gov

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) today determined that revoking the existing antidumping duty order on clad steel plate from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

As a result of the Commission’s affirmative determination and the Department of Commerce’s recent affirmative finding, the existing order on imports of this product from Japan will remain in place.

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, and Commissioners Deanna Tanner Okun and Charlotte R. Lane voted in the affirmative. Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman and Irving A. Williamson did not participate in this vote.

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 Clad Steel Plate from Japan (Inv. No. 731-TA-739 (Second Review)), USITC Publication 3907, March 2007) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the review.

Copies may be requested after March 22, 2007, by calling 202-205-2000 or by contacting the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Requests may be made by fax at 202-205-2104.

——————————————————————————–

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 ITC 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 (ITC) 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 ITC’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 Clad Steel Plate from Japan was instituted on October 2, 2006.

On January 5, 2007, the Commission voted to conduct an expedited review. Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff and Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman, Stephen Koplan, and Charlotte R. Lane concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate and voted for an expedited review. Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate, but that circumstances warranted a full review.

Information concerning the reasons for the Commission’s vote to conduct an expedited review was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2007. That notice and a record of the Commission’s vote is posted on the ITC’s Internet site at http://info.usitc.gov/oinv/sunset.NSF (under “Clad Steel Plate - Japan (2nd Review)”).

In addition, a record of the Commission’s vote to conduct an expedited 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 (ITC) today determined that revoking the existing antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

As a result of the Commission’s affirmative determination and the Department of Commerce’s recent affirmative finding, the existing order on imports of this product from China will remain in place.

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, and Commissioners Deanna Tanner Okun and Charlotte R. Lane voted in the affirmative. Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman and Irving A. Williamson did not participate in this vote.

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 Pure Magnesium from China (Inv. No. 731-TA-895 (Review), USITC Publication 3908, March 2007) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the review.

Copies may be requested after March 22, 2007, by calling 202-205-2000 or by contacting the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Requests may be made by fax at 202-205-2104.

——————————————————————————–

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 ITC 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 (ITC) 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 ITC’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 Pure Magnesium from China was instituted on October 2, 2006.

On January 5, 2007, the Commission voted to conduct an expedited review. Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff and Commissioners Stephen Koplan and Charlotte R. Lane concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate and voted for an expedited review. Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman concluded that both the domestic and respondent group responses for this review were inadequate and voted for an expedited review. Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate, but that circumstances warranted a full review.

Information concerning the reasons for the Commission’s vote to conduct an expedited review was published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2007. That notice and a record of the Commission’s vote is posted on the ITC’s Internet site at http://info.usitc.gov/oinv/sunset.NSF (under “Pure Magnesium (Granular) - China”).

In addition, a record of the Commission’s vote to conduct an expedited 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 (ITC) today announced that it will follow procedures used in 2006 to gather information from industry and public sources for its advice to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in connection with the U.S. textile and apparel “commercial availability” provisions in the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the U.S.-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), and the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA).

The ITC, an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency, is launching a new “umbrella” investigation, as requested by the USTR. Under the new investigation, the ITC will conduct individual product-specific reviews on the probable economic effect of granting duty-free and quota-free treatment to certain apparel imports from eligible AGOA, CBTPA, and ATPDEA beneficiary countries.

The AGOA, CBTPA, and ATPDEA extend duty-free and quota-free treatment to imports of apparel made in eligible beneficiary countries from fabrics made in the United States of U.S. yarns. They also authorize the President, on request of an interested party, to grant preferential treatment to apparel made in eligible beneficiary countries from fabrics or yarns that “cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner,” regardless of the source of the fabrics or yarns. Before proclaiming such preferential treatment, the President is required to submit a report to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Ways and Means and the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Finance that sets forth the proposed action, the reasons for it, advice from the ITC on the probable economic effect of the action, and advice from the appropriate industry advisory committee.

The ITC’s advice will be provided on an ongoing basis during 2007 under Investigation No. 332-484, Commercial Availability of Apparel Inputs (2007): Effect of Providing Preferential Treatment to Apparel from Sub-Saharan African, Caribbean Basin, and Andean Countries. The ITC will submit its advice to USTR in a series of classified reports, with each report provided on or about the 42nd day after receipt of a commercial availability request. A public version of each report will be available shortly after the ITC submits its report to the USTR.

The ITC will continue to post a notification letter announcing the initiation of each review on its Internet site (www.usitc.gov). The notification letter will identify the articles under consideration, request public comment on the proposed preferential treatment to be proclaimed, and refer the public to a special area on the ITC Internet site (http://www.usitc.gov/ind_econ_ana/research_ana/pres_cong/332/short_supply/shortsupintro.htm) for information on the request. Each notification letter will also provide the name, telephone number, and Internet e-mail address of ITC staff who will be able to provide additional information.

In addition, the ITC has developed a list of interested parties or individuals who wish to be automatically notified via e-mail of any commercial availability reviews by the ITC. Interested parties may be added to this list by notifying Jackie W. Jones (202-205-3466, jackie.jones@usitc.gov) and Heidi Colby-Oizumi (202-205-3391, heidi.colby@usitc.gov.)

Further information on the requests under review in this investigation also may be obtained by contacting the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, or by calling 202-205-2000. In addition, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) publishes a summary of each request from interested parties in the Federal Register. OTEXA also posts these notices on its Internet site at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/CA.htm.

Because of time constraints, the ITC will not hold public hearings in connection with the investigation or any of the requests it receives. However, interested parties will be invited to submit written statements for the record for each requested review. The ITC is particularly interested in receiving input from the private sector on the likely effect of the proposed action on U.S. producers, workers, and consumers.

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

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC or Commission) has instituted an investigation to study the effects of new trade benefits accorded to textile and apparel imports from Haiti under recently enacted legislation.

The investigation, Textiles and Apparel: Effects of Special Rules for Haiti on Trade Markets and Industries, is required by the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act (HHOPE). HHOPE was enacted as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, which was signed into law in December 2006.

The HHOPE legislation grants U.S. duty-free treatment to imports of qualifying textile and apparel from Haiti if the President determines that Haiti meets certain requirements set out in the statute. The new law also requires the ITC to report to the Congress on the effects of the law on the trade markets and industries involving textile and apparel in Haiti, the United States, beneficiary countries of the U.S.-Caribbean Basin Trade Preference Act, and countries with which the United States has free trade agreements.

The ITC will submit its report to the Congress by June 20, 2008.

The ITC will hold a public hearing in connection with the investigation at 9:30 a.m. on November 8, 2007. Requests to appear at the public hearing should be filed no later than 5:15 p.m. on October 23, 2007, with the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.

The ITC also welcomes written submissions for the record. Written submissions (original and 14 copies) should be addressed to the Secretary to the Commission at the above address and should be submitted at the earliest practical date but no later than 5:15 p.m. on February 7, 2008. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be available for public inspection.

Further information on the scope of this investigation and appropriate submissions is available in the ITC’s notice of investigation, dated February 6, 2007, which may be obtained from the ITC Internet site (www.usitc.gov) or by contacting the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC or Commission) today voted to conduct full five-year (”sunset”) reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on imports of welded large diameter line pipe from Japan and Mexico (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-919-920 (Review)).
As a result of today’s votes, the Commission will conduct full reviews to determine whether revocation of these orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

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 ITC 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 (ITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.

The Commission’s notice of institution in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file with the Commission responses that discuss the likely effects of revoking the order under review and provide other pertinent 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 ITC’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.

All six Commissioners concluded that both the domestic group response and the respondent group responses were adequate and voted for full reviews.

A record of the Commission’s votes on these matters 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 record of the Commission’s votes is also posted on the ITC’s Internet site at http://info.usitc.gov/oinv/sunset.NSF (under “Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe - Japan (Review)” and “Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe - Mexico (Review)”).

The Federal Register notice will indicate whether any further information or statements will be available. The Commission will issue a report after it completes its reviews.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain wireless conference calling devices, components thereof, and devices containing the same. The products at issue in this investigation are devices which enable multiple users of headsets to participate in a conference call placed through a cellular telephone.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Callpod, Inc., of Chicago, IL, on December 29, 2006. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States of certain wireless conference calling devices, components thereof, and devices containing the same that infringe patents owned by Callpod. The complainant requests that the ITC issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order.

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

GN Netcom, Inc., of Nashua, NH;
GN Netcom A/S of Denmark; and
GN Netcom Store Nord A/S of Denmark.
By instituting this investigation (337-TA-591), the ITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The case will be referred to the Honorable Charles E. Bullock, an ITC administrative law judge, who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. Judge Bullock 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 ITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the ITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. ITC 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 investigation is based on a complaint filed by Topower Computer Industrial Co., Ltd., of Taiwan, on December 13, 2006. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on January 9, 2007. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain coupler devices for power supply facilities, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe a patent owned by Topower. The complainant requests that the ITC issue a permanent general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders.

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

Xion/Axpertec Inc. of Walnut, CA;
Thermaltake Technology, Inc., USA of City of Industry, CA;
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd., Taiwan of Taiwan;
Aspire/Apevia Int’l Corp. of City of Industry, CA;
MGE Company, USA of City of Industry, CA;
Raidcom Technology Inc., Corporation of City of Industry, CA;
Codegen Technology Co., Ltd. of City of Industry, CA;
Leadman Electronic Co., Ltd. of City of Industry, CA;
Hipro Electronics Co., Ltd., of City of Industry, CA;
Cooler Master Inc., USA of Ontario, CA;
Cooler Master Co., Ltd., Taiwan of Taiwan;
Broadway Com Corp. of City of Industry, CA;
JPAC Computer, Inc. of City of Industry, CA;
Silent Power Electronics, GmbH of Germany;
Linkworld Electronics Corporation of Brea, CA;
Acbel Polytech Inc. of Morrisville, NC;
HEC Group, Compucase Enterprise, USA of City of Industry, CA;
HEC Group, Compucase Enterprise, Taiwan of Taiwan;
Atrix Inc. of El Monte, CA;
ASYS of City of Industry, CA;
Logisys Computer Inc. of Pomona, CA;
Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc. of South Richfield, MN;
Sunbeam Company of City of Industry, CA;
Sirtec International Co., Ltd. of Orange, CA;
Enhance Electronics of Cerritos, CA;
Super Flower Computer Inc. of Taiwan;
Taiwan Youngyear Electonics Co., Ltd. of Taiwan;
Sun Pro Electronics Co., Ltd. of China;
Unitek Electronics Co., Ltd. of China; and
Shenzhen Chi Yuan Industrial Co., Ltd. of China.
By instituting this investigation (337-TA-590), the ITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The case will be referred to the Honorable Robert L. Barton, Jr., an ITC administrative law judge, who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. Judge Barton 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 ITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the ITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. ITC 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.

Beck will oversee the maintenance and publication of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). This effort includes the coordination of Commission reports on tariff legislation, the preparation of Presidential proclamations implementing free trade agreements, chairing the Committee for Statistical Annotation of the Tariff Schedules (the “484(f) Committee”) and representing the Commission in the U.S. delegation to various committees of the World Customs Organization in Brussels and of the World Trade Organization in Geneva.

Beck joined the Commission’s Office of Industries (Chemicals Division) in 1974 and transferred to TATA in 1981. From 1987 through 1990, he was Chief of the Nomenclature Division in TATA, where he supervised the compilation of the HTS commodity chapters. He served as Acting Deputy Director of the office from 1991 through 1993. From 1994 through 1998, he worked under contract as a Senior Technical Officer at the World Customs Organization in Brussels. After his return to the ITC in 1999, he served for four years as Chairman of the WCO’s HS Review Sub-Committee, and he is currently serving his third year as Chairman of the Harmonized System Committee. He has been Acting Director of TATA since January 2005.

Beck holds a Master of Business Administration degree from George Mason University and a bachelor of science degree in chemistry from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He and his wife currently reside in Vienna, Virginia.

The ITC is an independent, nonpartisan, quasi-judicial federal agency that provides trade expertise to both the legislative and executive branches of government, determines the impact of imports on U.S. industries, and directs actions against certain unfair trade practices, such as patent, trademark, and copyright infringement. ITC analysts and economists investigate and publish reports on U.S. industries and the global trends that affect them. The agency also maintains and publishes the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

As a result of today’s vote, the Commission will conduct an expedited review to determine whether revocation of the order concerning this product would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

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 ITC 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 (ITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.

The Commission’s notice of institution in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file with the Commission responses that discuss the likely effects of revoking the order under review and provide other pertinent 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 ITC’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 determinations 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.

Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, and Commissioners Stephen Koplan and Charlotte R. Lane concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate and voted for an expedited review. Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman concluded that both the domestic and respondent group responses for this review were inadequate and voted for an expedited review. Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate, but that circumstances warranted a full review.

A record of the Commission’s vote on this matter 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 record of the Commission’s vote is also posted on the ITC’s Internet server at http://info.usitc.gov/oinv/sunset.NSF (under “Pure Magnesium (Granular) - China”).

The Federal Register notice will indicate whether any further information or statements will be available. Only parties that filed adequate responses and filed a timely notice of appearance are eligible to participate further in this review. The Commission will issue a report after it completes its review.

As a result of today’s vote, the Commission will conduct an expedited review to determine whether revocation of the order concerning this product would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

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 ITC 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 (ITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.

The Commission’s notice of institution in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file with the Commission responses that discuss the likely effects of revoking the order under review and provide other pertinent 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 ITC’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 determinations 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.

Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, and Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman, Stephen Koplan, and Charlotte R. Lane concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate and voted for an expedited review. Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate, but that circumstances warranted a full review.

A record of the Commission’s vote on this matter 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 record of the Commission’s vote is also posted on the ITC’s Internet server at http://info.usitc.gov/oinv/sunset.NSF (under “Clad Steel Plate - Japan (2nd Review)”).

The Federal Register notice will indicate whether any further information or statements will be available. Only parties that filed adequate responses and filed a timely notice of appearance are eligible to participate further in this review. The Commission will issue a report after it completes its review.

**********************************************************************

Effective December 22, 2006 an upgrade version of AESPcLink,
Version 6.7, is available to be downloaded.

AESPcLink Version 6.7 contains the following new features:

Proper Validation of License Types

Version 6.7 will further validate the Export Control Classification
Number (ECCN) and the License Number. Previously, the ECCNs were
primarily validated for their format while License Numbers were
validated based on whether they were required, not required or
conditional. Recent additions have required the expansion of the
AESPcLink validations to include specific values in these fields.

The update affects the following License Types:

C53
C54
C55
C56

Alphanumeric Suffix in USPPI Profile

Version 6.7 allows users to enter alphanumeric characters in the
Suffix field of the USPPI ID Number. Previously, when entering an
11 character USPPI ID Number, AESPcLink validations would not allow
for alphanumeric characters in the Suffix field.

To update your AESPcLink software to the latest 6.7 Version, please
go to the the “Tools” Menu in AESPcLink and select
“Update AESPcLink Software” and follow the instructions provided.

Once the latest 6.7 Version is downloaded, please update your
AES Code Tables - Other (License, Export, Unit Codes) from the
“Tools” Menu in AESPcLink in order to fully utilize these new
features.

For further information or questions, contact the U.S. Census Bureau’s
AES Branch at 1-800-549-0595, menu option 1 or at askaes@census.gov.

The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) today determined that there is a reasonable indication that a U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of coated free sheet paper from China, Indonesia, and Korea that are allegedly subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value.
Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff and Commissioners Stephen Koplan, Deanna Tanner Okun, and Charlotte R. Lane voted in the affirmative. Chairman Daniel R. Pearson voted in the negative. Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman did not participate in these investigations.

As a result of the Commission’s affirmative determinations, the U.S. Department of Commerce will continue to conduct its investigations of imports of coated free sheet paper from China, Indonesia, and Korea, with its preliminary countervailing duty determinations due on or about January 24, 2007, and its preliminary antidumping determinations due on or about April 9, 2007.

The Commission’s public report Coated Free Sheet Paper from China, Indonesia, and Korea (Investigation Nos. 701-TA-444-446 and 731-TA-1107-1109 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3900, December 2006) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the investigations.

Copies of the report are expected to be available after January 10, 2007, by calling 202-205-2000 or from the Office of the Secretary, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Requests may also be faxed to 202-205-2104.

——————————————————————————–

FACTUAL HIGHLIGHTS
Coated Free Sheet Paper from China, Indonesia, and Korea
Investigations Nos. 701-TA-444-446 and 731-TA-1105-1107 (Preliminary)
Product Description: For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is coated free sheet paper, which is primarily used by commercial printers, publishers, and label manufacturers for printed items such as catalogues, books, magazines, and labels. The merchandise subject to these investigations is provided for in subheadings 4810.13.1900; 4810.13.2010; 4810.13.2090; 4810.13.5000; 4810.13.7040; 4810.14.1900; 4810.14.2010; 4810.14.2090; 4810.14.5000; 4810.14.7040; 4810.19.1900; 4810.19.2010; and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

Status of Proceedings:
1. Types of investigations: Preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty.
2. Petitioner: New Page Corp., Dayton, OH.
3. Investigations instituted by USITC: October 31, 2006.
4. Conference: November 21, 2006.
5. USITC vote: December 15, 2006.
6. USITC notification of Department of Commerce: December 15, 2006.

U.S. Industry:
1. Number of U.S. firms in 2006: Ten.
2. Production during 2005 (tons): 4,597,794.
3. Employment of production and related workers: 7,464.
4. U.S. producers’ shipments during 2005: 4,553,569 tons.
5. U.S. apparent consumption during 2005: 1/
6. Ratio of quantity of total imports to U.S. apparent consumption
during 2005: 1/

U.S. Imports:
1. Quantity of subject imports during 2005: 1/
2. Value of subject imports during: 1/